Cargando…

Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis

BACKGROUND: Despite the technological advancements in myoelectric prostheses, body-powered prostheses remain a popular choice for amputees, in part due to the natural sensory advantage they provide. Research on haptic feedback in myoelectric prostheses has delivered mixed results. Furthermore, there...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas, Neha, Ung, Garrett, McGarvey, Colette, Brown, Jeremy D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31186005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0545-5
_version_ 1783425733164531712
author Thomas, Neha
Ung, Garrett
McGarvey, Colette
Brown, Jeremy D.
author_facet Thomas, Neha
Ung, Garrett
McGarvey, Colette
Brown, Jeremy D.
author_sort Thomas, Neha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite the technological advancements in myoelectric prostheses, body-powered prostheses remain a popular choice for amputees, in part due to the natural sensory advantage they provide. Research on haptic feedback in myoelectric prostheses has delivered mixed results. Furthermore, there is limited research comparing various haptic feedback modalities in myoelectric prostheses. In this paper, we present a comparison of the feedback intrinsically present in body-powered prostheses (joint-torque feedback) to a commonly proposed feedback modality for myoelectric prostheses (vibrotactile feedback). In so doing, we seek to understand whether the advantages of kinesthetic feedback present in body-powered prostheses translate to myoelectric prostheses, and whether there are differences between kinesthetic and cutaneous feedback in prosthetic applications. METHODS: We developed an experimental testbed that features a cable-driven, voluntary-closing 1-DoF prosthesis, a capstan-driven elbow exoskeleton, and a vibrotactile actuation unit. The system can present grip force to users as either a flexion moment about the elbow or vibration on the wrist. To provide an equal comparison of joint-torque and vibrotactile feedback, a stimulus intensity matching scheme was utilized. Non-amputee participants (n=12) were asked to discriminate objects of varying stiffness with the prosthesis in three conditions: no haptic feedback, vibrotactile feedback, and joint-torque feedback. RESULTS: Results indicate that haptic feedback increased discrimination accuracy over no haptic feedback, but the difference between joint-torque feedback and vibrotactile feedback was not significant. In addition, our results highlight nuanced differences in performance depending on the objects’ stiffness, and suggest that participants likely pay less attention to incidental cues with the addition of haptic feedback. CONCLUSION: Even when haptic feedback is not modality matched to the task, such as in the case of vibrotactile feedback, performance with a myoelectric prosthesis can improve significantly. This implies it is possible to achieve the same benefits with vibrotactile feedback, which is cheaper and easier to implement than other forms of feedback.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6558922
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65589222019-06-13 Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis Thomas, Neha Ung, Garrett McGarvey, Colette Brown, Jeremy D. J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: Despite the technological advancements in myoelectric prostheses, body-powered prostheses remain a popular choice for amputees, in part due to the natural sensory advantage they provide. Research on haptic feedback in myoelectric prostheses has delivered mixed results. Furthermore, there is limited research comparing various haptic feedback modalities in myoelectric prostheses. In this paper, we present a comparison of the feedback intrinsically present in body-powered prostheses (joint-torque feedback) to a commonly proposed feedback modality for myoelectric prostheses (vibrotactile feedback). In so doing, we seek to understand whether the advantages of kinesthetic feedback present in body-powered prostheses translate to myoelectric prostheses, and whether there are differences between kinesthetic and cutaneous feedback in prosthetic applications. METHODS: We developed an experimental testbed that features a cable-driven, voluntary-closing 1-DoF prosthesis, a capstan-driven elbow exoskeleton, and a vibrotactile actuation unit. The system can present grip force to users as either a flexion moment about the elbow or vibration on the wrist. To provide an equal comparison of joint-torque and vibrotactile feedback, a stimulus intensity matching scheme was utilized. Non-amputee participants (n=12) were asked to discriminate objects of varying stiffness with the prosthesis in three conditions: no haptic feedback, vibrotactile feedback, and joint-torque feedback. RESULTS: Results indicate that haptic feedback increased discrimination accuracy over no haptic feedback, but the difference between joint-torque feedback and vibrotactile feedback was not significant. In addition, our results highlight nuanced differences in performance depending on the objects’ stiffness, and suggest that participants likely pay less attention to incidental cues with the addition of haptic feedback. CONCLUSION: Even when haptic feedback is not modality matched to the task, such as in the case of vibrotactile feedback, performance with a myoelectric prosthesis can improve significantly. This implies it is possible to achieve the same benefits with vibrotactile feedback, which is cheaper and easier to implement than other forms of feedback. BioMed Central 2019-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6558922/ /pubmed/31186005 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0545-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 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 Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Thomas, Neha
Ung, Garrett
McGarvey, Colette
Brown, Jeremy D.
Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis
title Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis
title_full Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis
title_fullStr Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis
title_short Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis
title_sort comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31186005
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0545-5
work_keys_str_mv AT thomasneha comparisonofvibrotactileandjointtorquefeedbackinamyoelectricupperlimbprosthesis
AT unggarrett comparisonofvibrotactileandjointtorquefeedbackinamyoelectricupperlimbprosthesis
AT mcgarveycolette comparisonofvibrotactileandjointtorquefeedbackinamyoelectricupperlimbprosthesis
AT brownjeremyd comparisonofvibrotactileandjointtorquefeedbackinamyoelectricupperlimbprosthesis