A review of invasive and non-invasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses

Svensson, Pamela; Wijk, Ulrika; Björkman, Anders; Antfolk, Christian

doi:10.1080/17434440.2017.1332989

Cited by 144 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The loss of sensibility and motor functions is a major problem for the affected individual. Advances in engineering have made it possible to build more advanced hand prostheses with improved grasping alternatives and range of motion (2,3), but there is no hand prosthesis that is even close to replacing all of the lost functions (1). Control of motor functions in the hand is highly dependent on sensory feedback (4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Control of motor functions in the hand is highly dependent on sensory feedback (4). One priority in prosthetic design that is desirable among arm amputees is how to provide the user with sensory feedback (2,3,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9). It has been shown that sensory feedback improves grasping control and performance with myoelectric hand prostheses in inexperienced users (10,11).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been shown that sensory feedback improves grasping control and performance with myoelectric hand prostheses in inexperienced users (10,11). Both invasive and non-invasive sensory feedback systems are under development (2,9,(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Touch on predefined areas on the forearm can be associated with specific fingers: Towards a new principle for sensory feedback in hand prostheses

Wijk¹,

Svensson²,

Antfolk³

et al. 2019

J Rehabil Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A drawback of currently available hand prostheses is the lack of sensory feedback. Some amputees experience a feeling of touch of the amputated hand when the residual limb is touched. This kind of referred sensation is called "phantom hand map". However, not all amputees experience "phantom hand map". Therefore, we examined whether touch on predefined areas on the forearm can be associated with specific fingers in individuals with an intact arm, using a tactile display during a 5-week training period. In conclusion, it is possible to learn to associate touch on predefined areas on the forearm with specific fingers after a structured training period, and the effect persisted after 2 weeks. These results may be of importance for the development of non-invasive sensory feedback systems in hand prostheses. Objective: Currently available hand prostheses lack sensory feedback. A "phantom hand map", a referred sensation, on the skin of the residual arm is a possible target to provide amputees with non-invasive somatotopically matched sensory feedback. However, not all amputees experience a phantom hand map. The aim of this study was to explore whether touch on predefined areas on the forearm can be associated with specific fingers. Design: A longitudinal cohort study. Subjects: A total of 31 able-bodied individuals. Methods: A "tactile display" was developed consisting of 5 servo motors, which provided the user with mechanotactile stimulus. Predefined pressure points on the volar aspect of the forearm were stimulated during a 2-week structured training period. Results: Agreement between the stimulated areas and the subjects' ability to discriminate the stimulation was high, with a distinct improvement up to the third training occasion, after which the kappa score stabilized for the rest of the period. Conclusion: It is possible to associate touch on intact skin on the forearm with specific fingers after a structured training period, and the effect persisted after 2 weeks. These results may be of importance for the development of non-invasive sensory feedback systems in hand prostheses.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Touch on predefined areas on the forearm can be associated with specific fingers: Towards a new principle for sensory feedback in hand prostheses

Wijk¹,

Svensson²,

Antfolk³

et al. 2019

J Rehabil Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending on the intensity, it can produce tactile sensations or activate nociceptors . Using implanted electrodes to deliver electrical stimulation directly to the peripheral nerves in order to restore afferent feedback has effectively been tested in trials and even though positive outcomes (such as somatotopic mapping) were reported, a satisfying and sustainable sensation of feedback could not yet be attained …”

Section: Providing a Sense Of Touchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bionic hand as artificial organ: Current status and future perspectives

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though the hand comprises only 1% of our body weight, about 30% of our central nervous systems (CNS) capacity is related to its control. The loss of a hand thus presents not only the loss of the most important tool allowing us to interact with our environment, but also leaves a dramatic sensory-motor deficit that challenges our CNS. Reconstruction of hand function is therefore not only an essential part of restoring body integrity and functional wholeness but also closes the loop of our neural circuits diminishing phantom sensation and neural pain. If biology fails to restore meaningful function, today we can resort to complex mechatronic replacement that have functional capabilities that in some respects even outperform biological alternatives, such as hand transplantation. As with replantation and transplantations, the challenge of bionic replacement is connecting the target with the CNS to achieve natural and intuitive control. In recent years, we have developed a number of strategies to improve neural interfacing, signal extraction, interpretation and stable mechanical attachment that are important parts of our current research. This work gives an overview of recent advances in bionic reconstruction, surgical refinements over technological interfacing, skeletal fixation, and modern rehabilitation tools that allow quick integration of prosthetic replacement. K E Y W O R D Sbionic reconstruction, hybrid fitting, interface, osseointegration, prostheses, rehabilitation, targeted muscle reinnervation 110 | AMAN et Al. meets the supreme principle to reconstruct "like with like" best, as it offers a hand of flesh and blood with immediate, intuitive proprioceptive motor control, sensory feedback, and a sense of ownership that at this time cannot be achieved by any prosthetic device.Aside from bionic reconstruction with myoelectric prostheses, controlled by at least 2 electromyography (EMG) signals from remnant stump muscles, also passive, bodypowered devices are used in prosthetic reconstruction. Passive prostheses range from stable or adjustable cosmetic hands, with silicone cover and natural appearance, to prosthetic tools, which are mainly hooks or grasping devices. 5 Socalled body-powered prostheses can perform simple grasping tasks by external cables attached to the prosthetic arm, driven by body movement. This serves as an assistant hand to the dominant hand, but it is obviously not capable of performing different grasps or hand movements.

show abstract

“…Intuitive methods to provide somatosensory feedback have been a research topic for several decades [8], and substantial progress was made in recent years [9][10][11][12]. However, a commercially available solution capable of improving the prosthesis performance in the activities of daily living is still unavailable [13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis

Wilke

Niethammer

Meyer

et al. 2019

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

A review of invasive and non-invasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses

Cited by 144 publications

References 56 publications

Touch on predefined areas on the forearm can be associated with specific fingers: Towards a new principle for sensory feedback in hand prostheses

Touch on predefined areas on the forearm can be associated with specific fingers: Towards a new principle for sensory feedback in hand prostheses

Bionic hand as artificial organ: Current status and future perspectives

Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About