Neurorobotic fusion of prosthetic touch, kinesthesia, and movement in bionic upper limbs promotes intrinsic brain behaviors

Marasco, Paul D.; Hebert, Jacqueline S.; Sensinger, Jonathon W.; Beckler, Dylan T.; Thumser, Zachary C.; Shehata, Ahmed W.; Williams, Heather E.; Wilson, Kathleen R.

doi:10.1126/scirobotics.abf3368

Cited by 90 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PIC is based on the cross-model congruency paradigm, which tests the ability of the study participants to ignore one form of feedback in favor of another form of feedback. In an experiment by Marasco and colleagues, two prosthetic users underwent targeted motor and sensory reinnervation [ 91 ]. The participants received tactile stimulation on the reinnervated skin either congruent or incongruent to visual feedback indicating the stimulation location while grasping an object.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The crossmodal congruency effect (CCE) is a further option for measuring implicit ownership. In a typical crossmodal congruency task for assessing upper-limb implicit ownership, touch feedback to two locations on the hand [ 105 , 106 ] or on the skin of a reinnervated residual limb [ 91 ] are provided together with two visual distracters. The visual distractors light up either congruent or incongruent with respect to the perceived touch location.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Especially when the prosthesis allows for voluntary execution of movements. Thus, instead of adding a dynamic element to the RHI as was done with able-bodied participants, we recommend using the dynamic Prosthesis Incorporation (PIC) assessment based on the CCE measurements instead [ 91 ]. Only such a closed-loop approach can determine if the investigated sensory feedback approaches are viable for home-use, or if the prosthetic system is limited by e.g., computational constraints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, as the prosthetic field aims to fully restore both sensation and control after limb loss, we suggest to used able-bodied performance as a comparison for measure scores whenever possible, as used by e.g. Marasco et al [ 91 ]. Further, validation of measures, as done by e.g., Bekrater-Bodmann and colleagues [ 59 ] is another important step in measure standardization and comparability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Prosthetic embodiment: systematic review on definitions, measures, and experimental paradigms

Zbinden

Lendaro

Ortiz-Catalán

2022

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term embodiment has become omnipresent within prosthetics research and is often used as a metric of the progress made in prosthetic technologies, as well as a hallmark for user acceptance. However, despite the frequent use of the term, the concept of prosthetic embodiment is often left undefined or described incongruently, sometimes even within the same article. This terminological ambiguity complicates the comparison of studies using embodiment as a metric of success, which in turn hinders the advancement of prosthetics research. To resolve these terminological ambiguities, we systematically reviewed the used definitions of embodiment in the prosthetics literature. We performed a thematic analysis of the definitions and found that embodiment is often conceptualized in either of two frameworks based on body representations or experimental phenomenology. We concluded that treating prosthetic embodiment within an experimental phenomenological framework as the combination of ownership and agency allows for embodiment to be a quantifiable metric for use in translational research. To provide a common reference and guidance on how to best assess ownership and agency, we conducted a second systematic review, analyzing experiments and measures involving ownership and agency. Together, we highlight a pragmatic definition of prosthetic embodiment as the combination of ownership and agency, and in an accompanying article, we provide a perspective on a multi-dimensional framework for prosthetic embodiment. Here, we concluded by providing recommendations on metrics that allow for outcome comparisons between studies, thereby creating a common reference for further discussions within prosthetics research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prosthetic embodiment: systematic review on definitions, measures, and experimental paradigms

Zbinden

Lendaro

Ortiz-Catalán

2022

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Today, various robots are involved in the knowledge-creation processes in varied spaces, which is why knowledge creation is no longer an exclusively human domain. There are many kinds of robots, including industrial arms; vacuum cleaners; autonomous vehicles and other mobile robots on land, air, and water; service robots; humanoids; soft robotics such as robotics in fabric; robotics (temporally) integrated with a human body like exoskeletons and bionic limbs; and swarms of small robot agents (Ricotti et al, 2017;Marasco et al, 2021). These robots exist in many environments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-creating Knowledge with Robots: System, Synthesis, and Symbiosis

Hautala

Jauhiainen

2022

J Knowl Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the contemporary robotizing knowledge economy, robots take increasing responsibility for accomplishing knowledge-related tasks that so far have been in the human domain. This profoundly changes the knowledge-creation processes that are at the core of the knowledge economy. Knowledge creation is an interactive spatial process through which ideas are transformed into new and justified outcomes, such as novel knowledge and innovations. However, knowledge-creation processes have rarely been studied in the context of human–robot co-creation. In this article, we take the perspective of key actors who create the future of robotics, namely, robotics-related students and researchers. Their thoughts and actions construct the knowledge co-creation processes that emerge between humans and robots. We ask whether robots can have and create knowledge, what kind of knowledge, and what kind of spatialities connect to interactive human–robot knowledge-creation processes. The article’s empirical material consists of interviews with 34 robotics-related researchers and students at universities in Finland and Singapore as well as observations of human–robot interactions there. Robots and humans form top-down systems, interactive syntheses, and integrated symbioses in spatial knowledge co-creation processes. Most interviewees considered that robots can have knowledge. Some perceived robots as machines and passive agents with rational knowledge created in hierarchical systems. Others saw robots as active actors and learning co-workers having constructionist knowledge created in syntheses. Symbioses integrated humans and robots and allowed robots and human–robot cyborgs access to embodied knowledge.

show abstract

Recent Progress in Advanced Tactile Sensing Technologies for Soft Grippers

Qu,

Mao,

et al. 2023

Adv Funct Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tactile sensing technology is crucial for soft grippers. Soft grippers equipped with intelligent tactile sensing systems based on various sensors can interact safely with the unstructured environments and obtain precise properties of objects (e.g., size and shape). It is essential to develop state‐of‐the‐art sensing technologies for soft grippers to handle different grasping tasks. In this review, the development of tactile sensing techniques for robotic hands is first introduced. Then, the principles and structures of different types of sensors normally adopted in soft grippers, including capacitive tactile sensors, piezoresistive tactile sensors, piezoelectric tactile sensors, fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensors, vision‐based tactile sensors, triboelectric tactile sensors, and other advanced sensors developed recently are briefly presented. Furthermore, sensing modalities and methodologies for soft grippers are also described in aspects of force measurement, perception of object properties, slip detection, and fusion of perception. The application scenarios of soft grippers are also summarized based on these advanced sensing technologies. Finally, the challenges of tactile sensing technologies for soft grippers that need to be tackled are discussed and perspectives in addressing these challenges are pointed out.

show abstract

Neurorobotic fusion of prosthetic touch, kinesthesia, and movement in bionic upper limbs promotes intrinsic brain behaviors

Abstract: Multiperspective analysis reveals neurorobotic sensory and motor fusion in a bionic system promotes intrinsic neural behaviors.

Cited by 90 publications

References 98 publications

Prosthetic embodiment: systematic review on definitions, measures, and experimental paradigms

Prosthetic embodiment: systematic review on definitions, measures, and experimental paradigms

Co-creating Knowledge with Robots: System, Synthesis, and Symbiosis

Recent Progress in Advanced Tactile Sensing Technologies for Soft Grippers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About