Cargando…
Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses
Recent studies have shown that direct nerve stimulation can be used to provide sensory feedback to hand amputees. The intensity of the elicited sensations can be modulated using the amplitude or frequency of the injected stimuli. However, a comprehensive comparison of the effects of these two encodi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6232130/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30420739 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34910-w |
_version_ | 1783370346982801408 |
---|---|
author | Valle, G. Petrini, F. M. Strauss, I. Iberite, F. D’Anna, E. Granata, G. Controzzi, M. Cipriani, C. Stieglitz, T. Rossini, P. M. Mazzoni, A. Raspopovic, S. Micera, S. |
author_facet | Valle, G. Petrini, F. M. Strauss, I. Iberite, F. D’Anna, E. Granata, G. Controzzi, M. Cipriani, C. Stieglitz, T. Rossini, P. M. Mazzoni, A. Raspopovic, S. Micera, S. |
author_sort | Valle, G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Recent studies have shown that direct nerve stimulation can be used to provide sensory feedback to hand amputees. The intensity of the elicited sensations can be modulated using the amplitude or frequency of the injected stimuli. However, a comprehensive comparison of the effects of these two encoding strategies on the amputees’ ability to control a prosthesis has not been performed. In this paper, we assessed the performance of two trans-radial amputees controlling a myoelectric hand prosthesis while receiving grip force sensory feedback encoded using either linear modulation of amplitude (LAM) or linear modulation of frequency (LFM) of direct nerve stimulation (namely, bidirectional prostheses). Both subjects achieved similar and significantly above-chance performance when they were asked to exploit LAM or LFM in different tasks. The feedbacks allowed them to discriminate, during manipulation through the robotic hand, objects of different compliances and shapes or different placements on the prosthesis. Similar high performances were obtained when they were asked to apply different levels of force in a random order on a dynamometer using LAM or LFM. In contrast, only the LAM strategy allowed the subjects to continuously modulate the grip pressure on the dynamometer. Furthermore, when long-lasting trains of stimulation were delivered, LFM strategy generated a very fast adaptation phenomenon in the subjects, which caused them to stop perceiving the restored sensations. Both encoding approaches were perceived as very different from the touch feelings of the healthy limb (natural). These results suggest that the choice of specific sensory feedback encodings can have an effect on user performance while grasping. In addition, our results invite the development of new approaches to provide more natural sensory feelings to the users, which could be addressed by a more biomimetic strategy in the future. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6232130 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62321302018-11-28 Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses Valle, G. Petrini, F. M. Strauss, I. Iberite, F. D’Anna, E. Granata, G. Controzzi, M. Cipriani, C. Stieglitz, T. Rossini, P. M. Mazzoni, A. Raspopovic, S. Micera, S. Sci Rep Article Recent studies have shown that direct nerve stimulation can be used to provide sensory feedback to hand amputees. The intensity of the elicited sensations can be modulated using the amplitude or frequency of the injected stimuli. However, a comprehensive comparison of the effects of these two encoding strategies on the amputees’ ability to control a prosthesis has not been performed. In this paper, we assessed the performance of two trans-radial amputees controlling a myoelectric hand prosthesis while receiving grip force sensory feedback encoded using either linear modulation of amplitude (LAM) or linear modulation of frequency (LFM) of direct nerve stimulation (namely, bidirectional prostheses). Both subjects achieved similar and significantly above-chance performance when they were asked to exploit LAM or LFM in different tasks. The feedbacks allowed them to discriminate, during manipulation through the robotic hand, objects of different compliances and shapes or different placements on the prosthesis. Similar high performances were obtained when they were asked to apply different levels of force in a random order on a dynamometer using LAM or LFM. In contrast, only the LAM strategy allowed the subjects to continuously modulate the grip pressure on the dynamometer. Furthermore, when long-lasting trains of stimulation were delivered, LFM strategy generated a very fast adaptation phenomenon in the subjects, which caused them to stop perceiving the restored sensations. Both encoding approaches were perceived as very different from the touch feelings of the healthy limb (natural). These results suggest that the choice of specific sensory feedback encodings can have an effect on user performance while grasping. In addition, our results invite the development of new approaches to provide more natural sensory feelings to the users, which could be addressed by a more biomimetic strategy in the future. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-11-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6232130/ /pubmed/30420739 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34910-w Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Valle, G. Petrini, F. M. Strauss, I. Iberite, F. D’Anna, E. Granata, G. Controzzi, M. Cipriani, C. Stieglitz, T. Rossini, P. M. Mazzoni, A. Raspopovic, S. Micera, S. Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses |
title | Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses |
title_full | Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses |
title_fullStr | Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses |
title_short | Comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses |
title_sort | comparison of linear frequency and amplitude modulation for intraneural sensory feedback in bidirectional hand prostheses |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6232130/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30420739 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34910-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT valleg comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT petrinifm comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT straussi comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT iberitef comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT dannae comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT granatag comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT controzzim comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT ciprianic comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT stieglitzt comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT rossinipm comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT mazzonia comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT raspopovics comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses AT miceras comparisonoflinearfrequencyandamplitudemodulationforintraneuralsensoryfeedbackinbidirectionalhandprostheses |