Cargando…

The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that both feed-forward and feed-back mechanisms are required for successful object manipulation. Open-loop upper-limb prosthesis wearers receive no tactile feedback, which may be the cause of their limited dexterity and compromised grip force control. In this paper...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saunders, Ian, Vijayakumar, Sethu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032545
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-8-60
_version_ 1782217762540617728
author Saunders, Ian
Vijayakumar, Sethu
author_facet Saunders, Ian
Vijayakumar, Sethu
author_sort Saunders, Ian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that both feed-forward and feed-back mechanisms are required for successful object manipulation. Open-loop upper-limb prosthesis wearers receive no tactile feedback, which may be the cause of their limited dexterity and compromised grip force control. In this paper we ask whether observed prosthesis control impairments are due to lack of feedback or due to inadequate feed-forward control. METHODS: Healthy subjects were fitted with a closed-loop robotic hand and instructed to grasp and lift objects of different weights as we recorded trajectories and force profiles. We conducted three experiments under different feed-forward and feed-back configurations to elucidate the role of tactile feedback (i) in ideal conditions, (ii) under sensory deprivation, and (iii) under feed-forward uncertainty. RESULTS: (i) We found that subjects formed economical grasps in ideal conditions. (ii) To our surprise, this ability was preserved even when visual and tactile feedback were removed. (iii) When we introduced uncertainty into the hand controller performance degraded significantly in the absence of either visual or tactile feedback. Greatest performance was achieved when both sources of feedback were present. CONCLUSIONS: We have introduced a novel method to understand the cognitive processes underlying grasping and lifting. We have shown quantitatively that tactile feedback can significantly improve performance in the presence of feed-forward uncertainty. However, our results indicate that feed-forward and feed-back mechanisms serve complementary roles, suggesting that to improve on the state-of-the-art in prosthetic hands we must develop prostheses that empower users to correct for the inevitable uncertainty in their feed-forward control.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3227590
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32275902011-12-07 The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control Saunders, Ian Vijayakumar, Sethu J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that both feed-forward and feed-back mechanisms are required for successful object manipulation. Open-loop upper-limb prosthesis wearers receive no tactile feedback, which may be the cause of their limited dexterity and compromised grip force control. In this paper we ask whether observed prosthesis control impairments are due to lack of feedback or due to inadequate feed-forward control. METHODS: Healthy subjects were fitted with a closed-loop robotic hand and instructed to grasp and lift objects of different weights as we recorded trajectories and force profiles. We conducted three experiments under different feed-forward and feed-back configurations to elucidate the role of tactile feedback (i) in ideal conditions, (ii) under sensory deprivation, and (iii) under feed-forward uncertainty. RESULTS: (i) We found that subjects formed economical grasps in ideal conditions. (ii) To our surprise, this ability was preserved even when visual and tactile feedback were removed. (iii) When we introduced uncertainty into the hand controller performance degraded significantly in the absence of either visual or tactile feedback. Greatest performance was achieved when both sources of feedback were present. CONCLUSIONS: We have introduced a novel method to understand the cognitive processes underlying grasping and lifting. We have shown quantitatively that tactile feedback can significantly improve performance in the presence of feed-forward uncertainty. However, our results indicate that feed-forward and feed-back mechanisms serve complementary roles, suggesting that to improve on the state-of-the-art in prosthetic hands we must develop prostheses that empower users to correct for the inevitable uncertainty in their feed-forward control. BioMed Central 2011-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3227590/ /pubmed/22032545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-8-60 Text en Copyright ©2011 Saunders and Vijayakumar; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Saunders, Ian
Vijayakumar, Sethu
The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control
title The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control
title_full The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control
title_fullStr The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control
title_full_unstemmed The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control
title_short The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control
title_sort role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032545
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-8-60
work_keys_str_mv AT saundersian theroleoffeedforwardandfeedbackprocessesforclosedloopprosthesiscontrol
AT vijayakumarsethu theroleoffeedforwardandfeedbackprocessesforclosedloopprosthesiscontrol
AT saundersian roleoffeedforwardandfeedbackprocessesforclosedloopprosthesiscontrol
AT vijayakumarsethu roleoffeedforwardandfeedbackprocessesforclosedloopprosthesiscontrol