The Merits of Dynamic Data Acquisition for Realistic Myocontrol.

dynamic data acquisition limb position effect myoelectric control performance assessment prosthetic hand

Journal

Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology
ISSN: 2296-4185
Titre abrégé: Front Bioeng Biotechnol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101632513

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 16 12 2019
accepted: 31 03 2020
entrez: 20 5 2020
pubmed: 20 5 2020
medline: 20 5 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Natural myocontrol is the intuitive control of a prosthetic limb via the user's voluntary muscular activations. This type of control is usually implemented by means of pattern recognition, which uses a set of training data to create a model that can decipher these muscular activations. A consequence of this approach is that the reliability of a myocontrol system depends on how representative this training data is for all types of signal variability that may be encountered when the amputee puts the prosthesis into real use. Myoelectric signals are indeed known to vary according to the position and orientation of the limb, among other factors, which is why it has become common practice to take this variability into account by acquiring training data in multiple body postures. To shed further light on this problem, we compare two ways of collecting data: while the subjects hold their limb statically in several positions one at a time, which is the traditional way, or while they dynamically move their limb at a constant pace through those same positions. Since our interest is to investigate any differences when controlling an actual prosthetic device, we defined an evaluation protocol that consisted of a series of complex, bimanual daily-living tasks. Fourteen intact participants performed these tasks while wearing prosthetic hands mounted on splints, which were controlled via either a statically or dynamically built myocontrol model. In both cases all subjects managed to complete all tasks and participants without previous experience in myoelectric control manifested a significant learning effect; moreover, there was no significant difference in the task completion times achieved with either model. When evaluated in a simulated scenario with traditional offline performance evaluation, on the other hand, the dynamically-trained system showed significantly better accuracy. Regardless of the setting, the dynamic data acquisition was faster, less tiresome, and better accepted by the users. We conclude that dynamic data acquisition is advantageous and confirm the limited relevance of offline analyses for online myocontrol performance.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32426344
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00361
pmc: PMC7203421
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

361

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Gigli, Gijsberts and Castellini.

Références

J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Jan 03;15(1):1
pubmed: 29298708
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011 Dec;19(6):644-51
pubmed: 21846608
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2019 Mar;10(2):e1486
pubmed: 30485732
Front Neurorobot. 2014 Aug 15;8:22
pubmed: 25177292
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 May;22(3):549-58
pubmed: 24235278
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Nov 29;10:106
pubmed: 21114807
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Jan 16;16(1):11
pubmed: 30651109
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:2772-5
pubmed: 23366500
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017 Jun;41(3):294-302
pubmed: 27473641
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015 Aug;2015:1140-3
pubmed: 26736467
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018 May;26(5):1046-1055
pubmed: 29752240
Sci Rep. 2017 Oct 23;7(1):13840
pubmed: 29062019
Front Neurorobot. 2014 Feb 25;8:8
pubmed: 24616697
Orthop Res Rev. 2016 Jul 07;8:31-39
pubmed: 30774468
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2017 Jan;21(1):134-141
pubmed: 26469791
Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 30;7(1):4437
pubmed: 28667260
PM R. 2018 Sep;10(9):951-962.e3
pubmed: 29474995
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2019 Jun;2019:1061-1066
pubmed: 31374770
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Jul 11;14(1):71
pubmed: 28697795
Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2010;38(4):347-79
pubmed: 21133838
Front Neurorobot. 2018 Dec 11;12:84
pubmed: 30618706
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:4828-31
pubmed: 22255419
J Neural Eng. 2019 Apr;16(2):026039
pubmed: 30864550
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:4227-30
pubmed: 24110665
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Mar;25(3):227-234
pubmed: 28113557
Front Neurosci. 2019 Sep 10;13:891
pubmed: 31551674
Front Neurorobot. 2013 Oct 22;7:17
pubmed: 24155719
Front Neurorobot. 2019 Aug 27;13:68
pubmed: 31507401
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018 Apr;65(4):770-778
pubmed: 28650804
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 2;12(11):e0186318
pubmed: 29095846
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2017 Jul;2017:200-204
pubmed: 28813818
Sci Rep. 2018 Jul 23;8(1):11084
pubmed: 30038402
J Rehabil Med. 2005 May;37(3):166-71
pubmed: 16040474
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Jun 26;15(1):57
pubmed: 29940991

Auteurs

Andrea Gigli (A)

Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Weßling, Germany.

Arjan Gijsberts (A)

Vandal Laboratory, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy.

Claudio Castellini (C)

Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Weßling, Germany.

Classifications MeSH