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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Resnik, Linda J., Acluche, Frantzy, Borgia, Matthew, Cancio, Jill, Latlief, Gail, Phillips, Samuel, Sasson, Nicole
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