Cargando…
EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm
INTRODUCTION: EMG pattern recognition control (EMG-PR) is a promising option for control of upper limb prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). The purposes of this study were to 1) evaluate outcomes of EMG-PR and inertial measurement units (IMU) control of the DEKA Arm as compared to pers...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193636/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30335781 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204854 |
_version_ | 1783364095367446528 |
---|---|
author | Resnik, Linda J. Acluche, Frantzy Borgia, Matthew Cancio, Jill Latlief, Gail Phillips, Samuel Sasson, Nicole |
author_facet | Resnik, Linda J. Acluche, Frantzy Borgia, Matthew Cancio, Jill Latlief, Gail Phillips, Samuel Sasson, Nicole |
author_sort | Resnik, Linda J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: EMG pattern recognition control (EMG-PR) is a promising option for control of upper limb prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). The purposes of this study were to 1) evaluate outcomes of EMG-PR and inertial measurement units (IMU) control of the DEKA Arm as compared to personal prosthesis; and 2) compare outcomes of EMG-PR to IMU control of DEKA Arm. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental, multi-site study with repeated measures that compared non-randomized groups using two types of controls: EMG-PR and IMUs. Subjects (N = 36) were transradial (TR) and transhumeral (TH) amputees. Outcomes were collected at Baseline (using personal prosthesis), and after in-laboratory training (Part A), and home use (Part B). Data was compared to personal prosthesis, stratified by amputation level and control type. Outcomes were also compared by control type. RESULTS: The EMG-PR group had greater prosthesis use after Part A, but worse dexterity, lower satisfaction, and slower activity performance compared to Baseline; the IMU group had slower activity performance. After Part B, the EMG-PR group had less perceived activity difficulty; the IMU group had improved activity performance, improved disability and activity difficulty, but slower performance. No differences were observed for TH group by control type in Part A or B. The TR group using EMG-PR had worse dexterity (Parts A & B), and activity performance (Part A) as compared to IMU users. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that for the TR group that IMUs are a more effective control method for the DEKA Arm as compared to the EMG-PR prototypes employed in this study. Further research is needed to refine the EMG-PR systems for multi-DOF devices. Future studies should include a larger sample of TH amputees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551420. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6193636 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61936362018-11-05 EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm Resnik, Linda J. Acluche, Frantzy Borgia, Matthew Cancio, Jill Latlief, Gail Phillips, Samuel Sasson, Nicole PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: EMG pattern recognition control (EMG-PR) is a promising option for control of upper limb prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). The purposes of this study were to 1) evaluate outcomes of EMG-PR and inertial measurement units (IMU) control of the DEKA Arm as compared to personal prosthesis; and 2) compare outcomes of EMG-PR to IMU control of DEKA Arm. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental, multi-site study with repeated measures that compared non-randomized groups using two types of controls: EMG-PR and IMUs. Subjects (N = 36) were transradial (TR) and transhumeral (TH) amputees. Outcomes were collected at Baseline (using personal prosthesis), and after in-laboratory training (Part A), and home use (Part B). Data was compared to personal prosthesis, stratified by amputation level and control type. Outcomes were also compared by control type. RESULTS: The EMG-PR group had greater prosthesis use after Part A, but worse dexterity, lower satisfaction, and slower activity performance compared to Baseline; the IMU group had slower activity performance. After Part B, the EMG-PR group had less perceived activity difficulty; the IMU group had improved activity performance, improved disability and activity difficulty, but slower performance. No differences were observed for TH group by control type in Part A or B. The TR group using EMG-PR had worse dexterity (Parts A & B), and activity performance (Part A) as compared to IMU users. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that for the TR group that IMUs are a more effective control method for the DEKA Arm as compared to the EMG-PR prototypes employed in this study. Further research is needed to refine the EMG-PR systems for multi-DOF devices. Future studies should include a larger sample of TH amputees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551420. Public Library of Science 2018-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6193636/ /pubmed/30335781 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204854 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) public domain dedication. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Resnik, Linda J. Acluche, Frantzy Borgia, Matthew Cancio, Jill Latlief, Gail Phillips, Samuel Sasson, Nicole EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm |
title | EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm |
title_full | EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm |
title_fullStr | EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm |
title_full_unstemmed | EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm |
title_short | EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm |
title_sort | emg pattern recognition compared to foot control of the deka arm |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193636/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30335781 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204854 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT resniklindaj emgpatternrecognitioncomparedtofootcontrolofthedekaarm AT acluchefrantzy emgpatternrecognitioncomparedtofootcontrolofthedekaarm AT borgiamatthew emgpatternrecognitioncomparedtofootcontrolofthedekaarm AT canciojill emgpatternrecognitioncomparedtofootcontrolofthedekaarm AT latliefgail emgpatternrecognitioncomparedtofootcontrolofthedekaarm AT phillipssamuel emgpatternrecognitioncomparedtofootcontrolofthedekaarm AT sassonnicole emgpatternrecognitioncomparedtofootcontrolofthedekaarm |