A Review of Sensory Feedback in Upper-Limb Prostheses From the Perspective of Human Motor Control

Abstract

This manuscript reviews historical and recent studies that focus on supplementary sensory feedback for use in upper limb prostheses. It shows that the inability of many studies to speak to the issue of meaningful performance improvements in real-life scenarios is caused by the complexity of the interactions of supplementary sensory feedback with other types of feedback along with other portions of the motor control process. To do this, the present manuscript frames the question of supplementary feedback from the perspective of computational motor control, providing a brief review of the main advances in that field over the last 20 years. It then separates the studies on the closed-loop prosthesis control into distinct categories, which are defined by relating the impact of feedback to the relevant components of the motor control framework, and reviews the work that has been done over the last 50+ years in each of those categories. It ends with a discussion of the studies, along with suggestions for experimental construction and connections with other areas of research, such as machine learning.

Online Closed-Loop Control Using Tactile Feedback Delivered Through Surface and Subdermal Electrotactile Stimulation

“…In this case, it would be relevant to compare the performance with and without tactile feedback to assess the added value of the subdermal interface. As reported in a recent review ( Sensinger and Dosen, 2020 ), both non-invasive and invasive approaches to restoring sensory feedback can improve performance and user experience, yet this is not a simple relation but depends on many factors. The functional test will allow comparing potential benefits to the challenges related to the application of the subdermal interface (e.g., minimal invasiveness).…”

“…Recent studies have demonstrated that closing the loop can improve performance ( Clemente et al, 2016 ; Schiefer et al, 2016 ; Markovic et al, 2018 ; Shehata et al, 2018 ; Clemente et al, 2019 ; George et al, 2019 ; Petrini et al, 2019 ), compensate cognitive burden ( Risso et al, 2019 ; Valle et al, 2020 ), and facilitate embodiment ( Page et al, 2018 ; Valle et al, 2018a ; Rognini et al, 2019 ). Therefore, the development of sensory feedback for myoelectric prostheses is an important task that is in the focus of the present research efforts ( Sensinger and Dosen, 2020 ).…”

Biomimetic Approaches for Separated Regeneration of Sensory and Motor Fibers in Amputee People: Necessary Conditions for Functional Integration of Sensory–Motor Prostheses With the Peripheral Nerves

“…(D) Once the reconnection of the two ends of the injured nerve is achieved, these neurons will be able to reinnervate the former target tissue, divided into sensors and muscles; or in the case that the target tissue has been lost, the reconnection with bionic interfaces. (Micera et al, 2011;Zecca et al, 2017;Clemente et al, 2019;D'Anna et al, 2019;Sensinger and Dosen, 2020).…”

Artificial Joint Speed Feedback for Myoelectric Prosthesis Controls

“…Proprioceptive information such as limb position or speed are communicated to the user indirectly using separate sensory channels including vibration [9]- [13] and audio [14]- [16] cues, among others [17]. However, although studies typically show improved limb control with sight of the prosthesis obscured, these benefits do not always translate to tasks where the prosthesis is visible [18] -some studies demonstrate improvement [19]- [22], while others show no change [22]- [25].…”