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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilke, Meike Annika, Niethammer, Christian, Meyer, Britta, Farina, Dario, Dosen, Strahinja
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