Cargando…

A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled

In the framework of rehabilitation robotics, a major role is played by the human–machine interface (HMI) used to gather the patient’s intent from biological signals, and convert them into control signals for the robotic artifact. Surprisingly, decades of research have not yet declared what the optim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ravindra, Vikram, Castellini, Claudio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25386135
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2014.00024
_version_ 1782341310896668672
author Ravindra, Vikram
Castellini, Claudio
author_facet Ravindra, Vikram
Castellini, Claudio
author_sort Ravindra, Vikram
collection PubMed
description In the framework of rehabilitation robotics, a major role is played by the human–machine interface (HMI) used to gather the patient’s intent from biological signals, and convert them into control signals for the robotic artifact. Surprisingly, decades of research have not yet declared what the optimal HMI is in this context; in particular, the traditional approach based upon surface electromyography (sEMG) still yields unreliable results due to the inherent variability of the signal. To overcome this problem, the scientific community has recently been advocating the discovery, analysis, and usage of novel HMIs to supersede or augment sEMG; a comparative analysis of such HMIs is therefore a very desirable investigation. In this paper, we compare three such HMIs employed in the detection of finger forces, namely sEMG, ultrasound imaging, and pressure sensing. The comparison is performed along four main lines: the accuracy in the prediction, the stability over time, the wearability, and the cost. A psychophysical experiment involving ten intact subjects engaged in a simple finger-flexion task was set up. Our results show that, at least in this experiment, pressure sensing and sEMG yield comparably good prediction accuracies as opposed to ultrasound imaging; and that pressure sensing enjoys a much better stability than sEMG. Given that pressure sensors are as wearable as sEMG electrodes but way cheaper, we claim that this HMI could represent a valid alternative/augmentation to sEMG to control a multi-fingered hand prosthesis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4209885
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42098852014-11-10 A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled Ravindra, Vikram Castellini, Claudio Front Neurorobot Neuroscience In the framework of rehabilitation robotics, a major role is played by the human–machine interface (HMI) used to gather the patient’s intent from biological signals, and convert them into control signals for the robotic artifact. Surprisingly, decades of research have not yet declared what the optimal HMI is in this context; in particular, the traditional approach based upon surface electromyography (sEMG) still yields unreliable results due to the inherent variability of the signal. To overcome this problem, the scientific community has recently been advocating the discovery, analysis, and usage of novel HMIs to supersede or augment sEMG; a comparative analysis of such HMIs is therefore a very desirable investigation. In this paper, we compare three such HMIs employed in the detection of finger forces, namely sEMG, ultrasound imaging, and pressure sensing. The comparison is performed along four main lines: the accuracy in the prediction, the stability over time, the wearability, and the cost. A psychophysical experiment involving ten intact subjects engaged in a simple finger-flexion task was set up. Our results show that, at least in this experiment, pressure sensing and sEMG yield comparably good prediction accuracies as opposed to ultrasound imaging; and that pressure sensing enjoys a much better stability than sEMG. Given that pressure sensors are as wearable as sEMG electrodes but way cheaper, we claim that this HMI could represent a valid alternative/augmentation to sEMG to control a multi-fingered hand prosthesis. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4209885/ /pubmed/25386135 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2014.00024 Text en Copyright © 2014 Ravindra and Castellini. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Ravindra, Vikram
Castellini, Claudio
A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled
title A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled
title_full A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled
title_fullStr A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled
title_short A Comparative Analysis of Three Non-Invasive Human-Machine Interfaces for the Disabled
title_sort comparative analysis of three non-invasive human-machine interfaces for the disabled
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4209885/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25386135
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2014.00024
work_keys_str_mv AT ravindravikram acomparativeanalysisofthreenoninvasivehumanmachineinterfacesforthedisabled
AT castelliniclaudio acomparativeanalysisofthreenoninvasivehumanmachineinterfacesforthedisabled
AT ravindravikram comparativeanalysisofthreenoninvasivehumanmachineinterfacesforthedisabled
AT castelliniclaudio comparativeanalysisofthreenoninvasivehumanmachineinterfacesforthedisabled