Cargando…
EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance
Closing the prosthesis control loop by providing artificial somatosensory feedback can improve utility and user experience. Additionally, closed-loop control should be more robust with respect to disturbance, but this might depend on the type of feedback provided. Thus, the present study investigate...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9530657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36203816 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.952288 |
_version_ | 1784801732048453632 |
---|---|
author | Tchimino, Jack Dideriksen, Jakob Lund Dosen, Strahinja |
author_facet | Tchimino, Jack Dideriksen, Jakob Lund Dosen, Strahinja |
author_sort | Tchimino, Jack |
collection | PubMed |
description | Closing the prosthesis control loop by providing artificial somatosensory feedback can improve utility and user experience. Additionally, closed-loop control should be more robust with respect to disturbance, but this might depend on the type of feedback provided. Thus, the present study investigates and compares the performance of EMG and force feedback in the presence of control disturbances. Twenty able-bodied subjects and one transradial amputee performed delicate and power grasps with a prosthesis in a functional task, while the control signal gain was temporarily increased (high-gain disturbance) or decreased (low-gain disturbance) without their knowledge. Three outcome measures were considered: the percentage of trials successful in the first attempt (reaction to disturbance), the average number of attempts in trials where the wrong force was initially applied (adaptation to disturbance), and the average completion time of the last attempt in every trial. EMG feedback was shown to offer significantly better performance compared to force feedback during power grasping in terms of reaction to disturbance and completion time. During power grasping with high-gain disturbance, the median first-attempt success rate was significantly higher with EMG feedback (73.3%) compared to that achieved with force feedback (60%). Moreover, the median completion time for power grasps with low-gain disturbance was significantly longer with force feedback than with EMG feedback (3.64 against 2.48 s, an increase of 32%). Contrary to our expectations, there was no significant difference between feedback types with regards to adaptation to disturbances and the two feedback types performed similarly in delicate grasps. The results indicated that EMG feedback displayed better performance than force feedback in the presence of control disturbances, further demonstrating the potential of this approach to provide a reliable prosthesis-user interaction. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9530657 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95306572022-10-05 EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance Tchimino, Jack Dideriksen, Jakob Lund Dosen, Strahinja Front Neurosci Neuroscience Closing the prosthesis control loop by providing artificial somatosensory feedback can improve utility and user experience. Additionally, closed-loop control should be more robust with respect to disturbance, but this might depend on the type of feedback provided. Thus, the present study investigates and compares the performance of EMG and force feedback in the presence of control disturbances. Twenty able-bodied subjects and one transradial amputee performed delicate and power grasps with a prosthesis in a functional task, while the control signal gain was temporarily increased (high-gain disturbance) or decreased (low-gain disturbance) without their knowledge. Three outcome measures were considered: the percentage of trials successful in the first attempt (reaction to disturbance), the average number of attempts in trials where the wrong force was initially applied (adaptation to disturbance), and the average completion time of the last attempt in every trial. EMG feedback was shown to offer significantly better performance compared to force feedback during power grasping in terms of reaction to disturbance and completion time. During power grasping with high-gain disturbance, the median first-attempt success rate was significantly higher with EMG feedback (73.3%) compared to that achieved with force feedback (60%). Moreover, the median completion time for power grasps with low-gain disturbance was significantly longer with force feedback than with EMG feedback (3.64 against 2.48 s, an increase of 32%). Contrary to our expectations, there was no significant difference between feedback types with regards to adaptation to disturbances and the two feedback types performed similarly in delicate grasps. The results indicated that EMG feedback displayed better performance than force feedback in the presence of control disturbances, further demonstrating the potential of this approach to provide a reliable prosthesis-user interaction. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC9530657/ /pubmed/36203816 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.952288 Text en Copyright © 2022 Tchimino, Dideriksen and Dosen. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Tchimino, Jack Dideriksen, Jakob Lund Dosen, Strahinja EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance |
title | EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance |
title_full | EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance |
title_fullStr | EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance |
title_full_unstemmed | EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance |
title_short | EMG feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance |
title_sort | emg feedback outperforms force feedback in the presence of prosthesis control disturbance |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9530657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36203816 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.952288 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tchiminojack emgfeedbackoutperformsforcefeedbackinthepresenceofprosthesiscontroldisturbance AT dideriksenjakoblund emgfeedbackoutperformsforcefeedbackinthepresenceofprosthesiscontroldisturbance AT dosenstrahinja emgfeedbackoutperformsforcefeedbackinthepresenceofprosthesiscontroldisturbance |