Cargando…
The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control
Users of myoelectric prostheses can often find them difficult to control. This can lead to passive-use of the device or total rejection, which can have detrimental effects on the contralateral limb due to overuse. Current clinically available prostheses are “open loop” systems, and although consider...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4992705/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27597823 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2016.00007 |
_version_ | 1782449039272312832 |
---|---|
author | Chadwell, Alix Kenney, Laurence Thies, Sibylle Galpin, Adam Head, John |
author_facet | Chadwell, Alix Kenney, Laurence Thies, Sibylle Galpin, Adam Head, John |
author_sort | Chadwell, Alix |
collection | PubMed |
description | Users of myoelectric prostheses can often find them difficult to control. This can lead to passive-use of the device or total rejection, which can have detrimental effects on the contralateral limb due to overuse. Current clinically available prostheses are “open loop” systems, and although considerable effort has been focused on developing biofeedback to “close the loop,” there is evidence from laboratory-based studies that other factors, notably improving predictability of response, may be as, if not more, important. Interestingly, despite a large volume of research aimed at improving myoelectric prostheses, it is not currently known which aspect of clinically available systems has the greatest impact on overall functionality and everyday usage. A protocol has, therefore, been designed to assess electromyographic (EMG) skill of the user and predictability of the prosthesis response as significant parts of the control chain, and to relate these to functionality and everyday usage. Here, we present the protocol and results from early pilot work. A set of experiments has been developed. First, to characterize user skill in generating the required level of EMG signal, as well as the speed with which users are able to make the decision to activate the appropriate muscles. Second, to measure unpredictability introduced at the skin–electrode interface, in order to understand the effects of the socket-mounted electrode fit under different loads on the variability of time taken for the prosthetic hand to respond. To evaluate prosthesis user functionality, four different outcome measures are assessed. Using a simple upper limb functional task prosthesis users are assessed for (1) success of task completion, (2) task duration, (3) quality of movement, and (4) gaze behavior. To evaluate everyday usage away from the clinic, the symmetricity of their real-world arm use is assessed using activity monitoring. These methods will later be used to assess a prosthesis user cohort to establish the relative contribution of each control factor to the individual measures of functionality and everyday usage (using multiple regression models). The results will support future researchers, designers, and clinicians in concentrating their efforts on the area that will have the greatest impact on improving prosthesis use. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4992705 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49927052016-09-05 The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control Chadwell, Alix Kenney, Laurence Thies, Sibylle Galpin, Adam Head, John Front Neurorobot Neuroscience Users of myoelectric prostheses can often find them difficult to control. This can lead to passive-use of the device or total rejection, which can have detrimental effects on the contralateral limb due to overuse. Current clinically available prostheses are “open loop” systems, and although considerable effort has been focused on developing biofeedback to “close the loop,” there is evidence from laboratory-based studies that other factors, notably improving predictability of response, may be as, if not more, important. Interestingly, despite a large volume of research aimed at improving myoelectric prostheses, it is not currently known which aspect of clinically available systems has the greatest impact on overall functionality and everyday usage. A protocol has, therefore, been designed to assess electromyographic (EMG) skill of the user and predictability of the prosthesis response as significant parts of the control chain, and to relate these to functionality and everyday usage. Here, we present the protocol and results from early pilot work. A set of experiments has been developed. First, to characterize user skill in generating the required level of EMG signal, as well as the speed with which users are able to make the decision to activate the appropriate muscles. Second, to measure unpredictability introduced at the skin–electrode interface, in order to understand the effects of the socket-mounted electrode fit under different loads on the variability of time taken for the prosthetic hand to respond. To evaluate prosthesis user functionality, four different outcome measures are assessed. Using a simple upper limb functional task prosthesis users are assessed for (1) success of task completion, (2) task duration, (3) quality of movement, and (4) gaze behavior. To evaluate everyday usage away from the clinic, the symmetricity of their real-world arm use is assessed using activity monitoring. These methods will later be used to assess a prosthesis user cohort to establish the relative contribution of each control factor to the individual measures of functionality and everyday usage (using multiple regression models). The results will support future researchers, designers, and clinicians in concentrating their efforts on the area that will have the greatest impact on improving prosthesis use. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4992705/ /pubmed/27597823 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2016.00007 Text en Copyright © 2016 Chadwell, Kenney, Thies, Galpin and Head. 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 Chadwell, Alix Kenney, Laurence Thies, Sibylle Galpin, Adam Head, John The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control |
title | The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control |
title_full | The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control |
title_fullStr | The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control |
title_full_unstemmed | The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control |
title_short | The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control |
title_sort | reality of myoelectric prostheses: understanding what makes these devices difficult for some users to control |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4992705/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27597823 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2016.00007 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chadwellalix therealityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT kenneylaurence therealityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT thiessibylle therealityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT galpinadam therealityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT headjohn therealityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT chadwellalix realityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT kenneylaurence realityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT thiessibylle realityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT galpinadam realityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol AT headjohn realityofmyoelectricprosthesesunderstandingwhatmakesthesedevicesdifficultforsomeuserstocontrol |