Cargando…
Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis
BACKGROUND: A prosthetic system should ideally reinstate the bidirectional communication between the user’s brain and its end effector by restoring both motor and sensory functions lost after an amputation. However, current commercial prostheses generally do not incorporate somatosensory feedback. E...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902515/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31823792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0622-9 |
_version_ | 1783477684773322752 |
---|---|
author | Wilke, Meike Annika Niethammer, Christian Meyer, Britta Farina, Dario Dosen, Strahinja |
author_facet | Wilke, Meike Annika Niethammer, Christian Meyer, Britta Farina, Dario Dosen, Strahinja |
author_sort | Wilke, Meike Annika |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: A prosthetic system should ideally reinstate the bidirectional communication between the user’s brain and its end effector by restoring both motor and sensory functions lost after an amputation. However, current commercial prostheses generally do not incorporate somatosensory feedback. Even without explicit feedback, grasping using a prosthesis partly relies on sensory information. Indeed, the prosthesis operation is characterized by visual and sound cues that could be exploited by the user to estimate the prosthesis state. However, the quality of this incidental feedback has not been objectively evaluated. METHODS: In this study, the psychometric properties of the auditory and visual feedback of prosthesis motion were assessed and compared to that of a vibro-tactile interface. Twelve able-bodied subjects passively observed prosthesis closing and grasping an object, and they were asked to discriminate (experiment I) or estimate (experiment II) the closing velocity of the prosthesis using visual (VIS), acoustic (SND), or combined (VIS + SND) feedback. In experiment II, the subjects performed the task also with a vibrotactile stimulus (VIB) delivered using a single tactor. The outcome measures for the discrimination and estimation experiments were just noticeable difference (JND) and median absolute estimation error (MAE), respectively. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the incidental sources provided a remarkably good discrimination and estimation of the closing velocity, significantly outperforming the vibrotactile feedback. Using incidental sources, the subjects could discriminate almost the minimum possible increment/decrement in velocity that could be commanded to the prosthesis (median JND < 2% for SND and VIS + SND). Similarly, the median MAE in estimating the prosthesis velocity randomly commanded from the full working range was also low, i.e., approximately 5% in SND and VIS + SND. CONCLUSIONS: Since the closing velocity is proportional to grasping force in state-of-the-art myoelectric prostheses, the results of the present study imply that the incidental feedback, when available, could be usefully exploited for grasping force control. Therefore, the impact of incidental feedback needs to be considered when designing a feedback interface in prosthetics, especially since the quality of estimation using supplemental sources (e.g., vibration) can be worse compared to that of the intrinsic cues. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6902515 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-69025152019-12-11 Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis Wilke, Meike Annika Niethammer, Christian Meyer, Britta Farina, Dario Dosen, Strahinja J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: A prosthetic system should ideally reinstate the bidirectional communication between the user’s brain and its end effector by restoring both motor and sensory functions lost after an amputation. However, current commercial prostheses generally do not incorporate somatosensory feedback. Even without explicit feedback, grasping using a prosthesis partly relies on sensory information. Indeed, the prosthesis operation is characterized by visual and sound cues that could be exploited by the user to estimate the prosthesis state. However, the quality of this incidental feedback has not been objectively evaluated. METHODS: In this study, the psychometric properties of the auditory and visual feedback of prosthesis motion were assessed and compared to that of a vibro-tactile interface. Twelve able-bodied subjects passively observed prosthesis closing and grasping an object, and they were asked to discriminate (experiment I) or estimate (experiment II) the closing velocity of the prosthesis using visual (VIS), acoustic (SND), or combined (VIS + SND) feedback. In experiment II, the subjects performed the task also with a vibrotactile stimulus (VIB) delivered using a single tactor. The outcome measures for the discrimination and estimation experiments were just noticeable difference (JND) and median absolute estimation error (MAE), respectively. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the incidental sources provided a remarkably good discrimination and estimation of the closing velocity, significantly outperforming the vibrotactile feedback. Using incidental sources, the subjects could discriminate almost the minimum possible increment/decrement in velocity that could be commanded to the prosthesis (median JND < 2% for SND and VIS + SND). Similarly, the median MAE in estimating the prosthesis velocity randomly commanded from the full working range was also low, i.e., approximately 5% in SND and VIS + SND. CONCLUSIONS: Since the closing velocity is proportional to grasping force in state-of-the-art myoelectric prostheses, the results of the present study imply that the incidental feedback, when available, could be usefully exploited for grasping force control. Therefore, the impact of incidental feedback needs to be considered when designing a feedback interface in prosthetics, especially since the quality of estimation using supplemental sources (e.g., vibration) can be worse compared to that of the intrinsic cues. BioMed Central 2019-12-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6902515/ /pubmed/31823792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0622-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis 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 Wilke, Meike Annika Niethammer, Christian Meyer, Britta Farina, Dario Dosen, Strahinja Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis |
title | Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis |
title_full | Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis |
title_fullStr | Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis |
title_full_unstemmed | Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis |
title_short | Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis |
title_sort | psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902515/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31823792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-019-0622-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wilkemeikeannika psychometriccharacterizationofincidentalfeedbacksourcesduringgraspingwithahandprosthesis AT niethammerchristian psychometriccharacterizationofincidentalfeedbacksourcesduringgraspingwithahandprosthesis AT meyerbritta psychometriccharacterizationofincidentalfeedbacksourcesduringgraspingwithahandprosthesis AT farinadario psychometriccharacterizationofincidentalfeedbacksourcesduringgraspingwithahandprosthesis AT dosenstrahinja psychometriccharacterizationofincidentalfeedbacksourcesduringgraspingwithahandprosthesis |