Cargando…

Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback

A non-optimal prosthesis integration into an amputee’s body schema suggests some important functional and health consequences after lower limb amputation. These include low perception of a prosthesis as a part of the body, experiencing it as heavier than the natural limb, and cognitively exhausting...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chee, Lauren, Valle, Giacomo, Preatoni, Greta, Basla, Chiara, Marazzi, Michele, Raspopovic, Stanisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9537330/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36202893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21057-y
_version_ 1784803177697116160
author Chee, Lauren
Valle, Giacomo
Preatoni, Greta
Basla, Chiara
Marazzi, Michele
Raspopovic, Stanisa
author_facet Chee, Lauren
Valle, Giacomo
Preatoni, Greta
Basla, Chiara
Marazzi, Michele
Raspopovic, Stanisa
author_sort Chee, Lauren
collection PubMed
description A non-optimal prosthesis integration into an amputee’s body schema suggests some important functional and health consequences after lower limb amputation. These include low perception of a prosthesis as a part of the body, experiencing it as heavier than the natural limb, and cognitively exhausting use for users. Invasive approaches, exploiting the surgical implantation of electrodes in residual nerves, improved prosthesis integration by restoring natural and somatotopic sensory feedback in transfemoral amputees. A non-invasive alternative that avoids surgery would reduce costs and shorten certification time, significantly increasing the adoption of such systems. To explore this possibility, we compared results from a non-invasive, electro-cutaneous stimulation system to outcomes observed with the use of implants in above the knee amputees. This non-invasive solution was tested in transfemoral amputees through evaluation of their ability to perceive and recognize touch intensity and locations, or movements of a prosthesis, and its cognitive integration (through dual task performance and perceived prosthesis weight). While this managed to evoke the perception of different locations on the artificial foot, and closures of the leg, it was less performant than invasive solutions. Non-invasive stimulation induced similar improvements in dual motor and cognitive tasks compared to neural feedback. On the other hand, results demonstrate that remapped, evoked sensations are less informative and intuitive than the neural evoked somatotopic sensations. The device therefore fails to improve prosthesis embodiment together with its associated weight perception. This preliminary evaluation meaningfully highlights the drawbacks of non-invasive systems, but also demonstrates benefits when performing multiple tasks at once. Importantly, the improved dual task performance is consistent with invasive devices, taking steps towards the expedited development of a certified device for widespread use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9537330
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95373302022-10-08 Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback Chee, Lauren Valle, Giacomo Preatoni, Greta Basla, Chiara Marazzi, Michele Raspopovic, Stanisa Sci Rep Article A non-optimal prosthesis integration into an amputee’s body schema suggests some important functional and health consequences after lower limb amputation. These include low perception of a prosthesis as a part of the body, experiencing it as heavier than the natural limb, and cognitively exhausting use for users. Invasive approaches, exploiting the surgical implantation of electrodes in residual nerves, improved prosthesis integration by restoring natural and somatotopic sensory feedback in transfemoral amputees. A non-invasive alternative that avoids surgery would reduce costs and shorten certification time, significantly increasing the adoption of such systems. To explore this possibility, we compared results from a non-invasive, electro-cutaneous stimulation system to outcomes observed with the use of implants in above the knee amputees. This non-invasive solution was tested in transfemoral amputees through evaluation of their ability to perceive and recognize touch intensity and locations, or movements of a prosthesis, and its cognitive integration (through dual task performance and perceived prosthesis weight). While this managed to evoke the perception of different locations on the artificial foot, and closures of the leg, it was less performant than invasive solutions. Non-invasive stimulation induced similar improvements in dual motor and cognitive tasks compared to neural feedback. On the other hand, results demonstrate that remapped, evoked sensations are less informative and intuitive than the neural evoked somatotopic sensations. The device therefore fails to improve prosthesis embodiment together with its associated weight perception. This preliminary evaluation meaningfully highlights the drawbacks of non-invasive systems, but also demonstrates benefits when performing multiple tasks at once. Importantly, the improved dual task performance is consistent with invasive devices, taking steps towards the expedited development of a certified device for widespread use. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9537330/ /pubmed/36202893 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21057-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Chee, Lauren
Valle, Giacomo
Preatoni, Greta
Basla, Chiara
Marazzi, Michele
Raspopovic, Stanisa
Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback
title Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback
title_full Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback
title_fullStr Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback
title_full_unstemmed Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback
title_short Cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback
title_sort cognitive benefits of using non-invasive compared to implantable neural feedback
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9537330/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36202893
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21057-y
work_keys_str_mv AT cheelauren cognitivebenefitsofusingnoninvasivecomparedtoimplantableneuralfeedback
AT vallegiacomo cognitivebenefitsofusingnoninvasivecomparedtoimplantableneuralfeedback
AT preatonigreta cognitivebenefitsofusingnoninvasivecomparedtoimplantableneuralfeedback
AT baslachiara cognitivebenefitsofusingnoninvasivecomparedtoimplantableneuralfeedback
AT marazzimichele cognitivebenefitsofusingnoninvasivecomparedtoimplantableneuralfeedback
AT raspopovicstanisa cognitivebenefitsofusingnoninvasivecomparedtoimplantableneuralfeedback