A comparison of alternative means of providing sensory feedback on upper limb prostheses

Shannon, G F

doi:10.1007/bf02478123

Cited by 82 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Adaptation can be reduced by changing the frequency of the subsequent stimulus or by applying the stimuli intermittently [83,93]. For electrotactile stimulation, adaptation is lowest for high current stimulation (just below the pain threshold) and can also be reduced by intermittent stimulation [94].…”

Section: Feedback Requirement 5: Adjustability Of Location and Stimulmentioning

confidence: 99%

Myoelectric forearm prostheses: State of the art from a user-centered perspective

Peerdeman

Boere²,

Witteveen³

et al. 2011

JRRD

408

306

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-User acceptance of myoelectric forearm prostheses is currently low. Awkward control, lack of feedback, and difficult training are cited as primary reasons. Recently, researchers have focused on exploiting the new possibilities offered by advancements in prosthetic technology. Alternatively, researchers could focus on prosthesis acceptance by developing functional requirements based on activities users are likely to perform. In this article, we describe the process of determining such requirements and then the application of these requirements to evaluating the state of the art in myoelectric forearm prosthesis research. As part of a needs assessment, a workshop was organized involving clinicians (representing end users), academics, and engineers. The resulting needs included an increased number of functions, lower reaction and execution times, and intuitiveness of both control and feedback systems. Reviewing the state of the art of research in the main prosthetic subsystems (electromyographic [EMG] sensing, control, and feedback) showed that modern research prototypes only partly fulfill the requirements. We found that focus should be on validating EMG-sensing results with patients, improving simultaneous control of wrist movements and grasps, deriving optimal parameters for force and position feedback, and taking into account the psychophysical aspects of feedback, such as intensity perception and spatial acuity.

show abstract

Section: Feedback Requirement 5: Adjustability Of Location and Stimulmentioning

confidence: 99%

Myoelectric forearm prostheses: State of the art from a user-centered perspective

Peerdeman

Boere²,

Witteveen³

et al. 2011

JRRD

408

306

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A variety of approaches have been suggested [9][10][11]. One promising direction that has been previously explored is to provide force feedback by Manuscript vibrotactile stimulation [8,12]; the non-invasive nature of this approach would allow for immediate wide-scale implementation among users of prosthetic hands [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative to direct haptic feedback, remote vibrotactile feedback improves but slows object manipulation

Stepp

Matsuoka

2010

2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most prosthetic hand users are limited to visual feedback of movement performance. To characterize the benefit of vibrotactile feedback for a task that lacks haptic feedback, a virtual environment was used to experimentally manipulate visual, task-relevant haptic, and remote vibrotactile feedback on simple object manipulation for unimpaired subjects. The combination of visual and remote vibrotactile feedback was compared to visual feedback alone, and to simultaneous visual and direct haptic feedback to represent ideal performance. Visual and vibrotactile feedback resulted in improvement of most performance variables including difficulty ratings relative to visual feedback alone. However addition of sensory cues to visual feedback increased trial times and the increase was steeper for vibrotactile than for haptic feedback. Specifically, during vibrotactile feedback the velocity did not change, but the duration of execution increased due to improved performance, resulting in increased trial times. This result suggests future exploration of performance improvement and execution speed for augmented sensory feedback.

show abstract

“…The neuroprosthesis user is, however, deprived of the sensory afferent information that normally assists in voluntary and reflexive control of grasp force , and must rely instead on vision to control grasp during daily tasks. Like subjects with anaesthetised fingers (JOHANSSON and Many previous studies have shown that providing a substitute for the absent tactile or proprioceptive sensory information, displayed to an alternative sense or location, can improve the performance of grasping tasks (KAWAMURA and SUEDA, 1968;MANN and REIMERS, 1970;SHANNON, 1976;SZETO and LYMAN, 1977;SHANNON, 1979;KAWAMURA et al, 1981;HOSHIMIYA et al, 1986;MEEK et al, 1989;DURFEE et al, 1991;RISO et al, 1991;VANDOREN et al, 1991;PATTERSON and KATZ, 1992). MEEK et al (1989) showed that success rates in a manipulation task using a motorised prosthetic hand increased when grasp-force feedback was provided by a mechanical piston on the forearm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of supplemental grasp-force feedback in the presence of vision

Zafar

Doren

2000

Med. Biol. Eng. Comput.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that supplemental grasp-force feedback can improve control for users of a hand prosthesis or neuroprosthesis under conditions where vision provides little force information. Visual cues of force are widely available in everyday use, however, and may obviate the utility of supplemental force information. The purpose of the present study was to use a video-based hand neuroprosthesis simulator to determine whether grasp-force feedback can improve control in the presence of realistic visual information. Seven able-bodied subjects used the simulator to complete a simple grasp-and-hold task while controlling and viewing pre-recorded, digitised video clips of a neuroprosthesis user's hand squeezing a compliant object. The task was performed with and without supplemental force feedback presented via electrocutaneous stimulation. Subjects had to achieve and maintain the (simulated) grasp force within a target window of variable size (+/- 10-40% of full scale). Force feedback improved the success rate significantly for all target window sizes (8-16%, on average), and improved the success rate at all window sizes for six of the seven subjects. Overall, the improvement was equivalent functionally to a 35% increase in the window size. Feedback also allowed subjects to identify the direction of grasp errors more accurately, on average by 10-15%. In some cases, feedback improved the failure identification rate even if success rates were unchanged. It is thus concluded that supplemental grasp-force feedback can improve grasp control even with access to rich visual information from the hand and object.

show abstract

A comparison of alternative means of providing sensory feedback on upper limb prostheses

Cited by 82 publications

References 6 publications

Myoelectric forearm prostheses: State of the art from a user-centered perspective

Myoelectric forearm prostheses: State of the art from a user-centered perspective

Relative to direct haptic feedback, remote vibrotactile feedback improves but slows object manipulation

Effectiveness of supplemental grasp-force feedback in the presence of vision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About