Sensitivity to temporal parameters of intraneural tactile sensory feedback.
Intraneural interface
Neural sensory feedback
Neural stimulation
Upper limb amputees
Journal
Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1743-0003
Titre abrégé: J Neuroeng Rehabil
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101232233
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 08 2020
15 08 2020
Historique:
received:
03
09
2019
accepted:
29
07
2020
entrez:
18
8
2020
pubmed:
18
8
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Recent studies have shown that neural stimulation can be used to provide artificial sensory feedback to amputees eliciting sensations referred on the amputated hand. The temporal properties of the neural stimulation modulate aspects of evoked sensations that can be exploited in a bidirectional hand prosthesis. We previously collected evidence that the derivative of the amplitude of the stimulation (intra-digit temporal dynamics) allows subjects to recognize object compliance and that the time delay among stimuli injected through electrodes implanted in different nerves (inter-digit temporal distance) allows to recognize object shapes. Nevertheless, a detailed characterization of the subjects' sensitivity to variations of intra-digit temporal dynamic and inter-digit temporal distance of the intraneural tactile feedback has not been executed. An exhaustive understanding of the overall potentials and limits of intraneural stimulation to deliver sensory feedback is of paramount importance to bring this approach closer and closer to the natural situation. To this aim, here we asked two trans-radial amputees to identify stimuli with different temporal characteristics delivered to the same active site (intra-digit temporal Dynamic Recognition (DR)) or between two active sites (inter-digit Temporal distance Recognition (TR)). Finally, we compared the results achieved for (simulated) TR with conceptually similar experiments with real objects with one subject. We found that the subjects were able to identify stimuli with temporal differences (perceptual thresholds) larger than 0.25 s for DR and larger than 0.125 s for TR, respectively. Moreover, we also found no statistically significant differences when the subjects were asked to identify three objects during simulated 'open-loop' TR experiments or real 'closed-loop' tests while controlling robotic hand. This study is a new step towards a more detailed analysis of the overall potentials and limits of intraneural sensory feedback. A full characterization is necessary to develop more advanced prostheses capable of restoring all lost functions and of being perceived more as a natural limb by users.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Recent studies have shown that neural stimulation can be used to provide artificial sensory feedback to amputees eliciting sensations referred on the amputated hand. The temporal properties of the neural stimulation modulate aspects of evoked sensations that can be exploited in a bidirectional hand prosthesis.
METHODS
We previously collected evidence that the derivative of the amplitude of the stimulation (intra-digit temporal dynamics) allows subjects to recognize object compliance and that the time delay among stimuli injected through electrodes implanted in different nerves (inter-digit temporal distance) allows to recognize object shapes. Nevertheless, a detailed characterization of the subjects' sensitivity to variations of intra-digit temporal dynamic and inter-digit temporal distance of the intraneural tactile feedback has not been executed. An exhaustive understanding of the overall potentials and limits of intraneural stimulation to deliver sensory feedback is of paramount importance to bring this approach closer and closer to the natural situation. To this aim, here we asked two trans-radial amputees to identify stimuli with different temporal characteristics delivered to the same active site (intra-digit temporal Dynamic Recognition (DR)) or between two active sites (inter-digit Temporal distance Recognition (TR)). Finally, we compared the results achieved for (simulated) TR with conceptually similar experiments with real objects with one subject.
RESULTS
We found that the subjects were able to identify stimuli with temporal differences (perceptual thresholds) larger than 0.25 s for DR and larger than 0.125 s for TR, respectively. Moreover, we also found no statistically significant differences when the subjects were asked to identify three objects during simulated 'open-loop' TR experiments or real 'closed-loop' tests while controlling robotic hand.
CONCLUSIONS
This study is a new step towards a more detailed analysis of the overall potentials and limits of intraneural sensory feedback. A full characterization is necessary to develop more advanced prostheses capable of restoring all lost functions and of being perceived more as a natural limb by users.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32799900
doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00737-8
pii: 10.1186/s12984-020-00737-8
pmc: PMC7429895
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
110Références
Sci Transl Med. 2019 Oct 2;11(512):
pubmed: 31578244
Nat Med. 2019 Sep;25(9):1356-1363
pubmed: 31501600
Sci Transl Med. 2016 Oct 26;8(362):362ra142
pubmed: 27797958
Sci Rep. 2019 May 27;9(1):7916
pubmed: 31133637
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jul 11;114(28):E5693-E5702
pubmed: 28652360
Ann Neurol. 2019 Jan;85(1):137-154
pubmed: 30474259
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Dec;79(Pt B):344-53
pubmed: 26092769
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Oct 8;6(257):257ra138
pubmed: 25298320
Ann Neurol. 2003 May;53(5):630-5
pubmed: 12730997
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019 Jul;90(7):833-836
pubmed: 30100550
Biosens Bioelectron. 2010 Sep 15;26(1):62-9
pubmed: 20627510
J Neural Eng. 2016 Jun;13(3):036001
pubmed: 27001946
Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 16;10(1):527
pubmed: 31949245
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011 Oct;19(5):483-9
pubmed: 21859607
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2005 Sep;10(3):229-58
pubmed: 16221284
Neuron. 2018 Oct 10;100(1):37-45.e7
pubmed: 30244887
Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Sep 21;12:352
pubmed: 30319374
Sci Rep. 2017 Sep 7;7(1):10930
pubmed: 28883640
J Neurosci. 1984 Aug;4(8):2016-24
pubmed: 6470765
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Feb 5;6(222):222ra19
pubmed: 24500407
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Oct 8;6(257):257re6
pubmed: 25298322
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 29;8(1):9866
pubmed: 29959334
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002 Jun;10(2):94-101
pubmed: 12236452
J Neural Eng. 2018 Dec;15(6):066033
pubmed: 30245482
Elife. 2016 Mar 08;5:e09148
pubmed: 26952132
Sci Rep. 2019 Dec 17;9(1):19258
pubmed: 31848384
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 5;13(12):e0207659
pubmed: 30517154
Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 12;8(1):16666
pubmed: 30420739
Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 May;121(5):777-83
pubmed: 20110193
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2011 Aug;58(8):
pubmed: 21592916
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1732-1738
pubmed: 32348644
Sci Robot. 2018 Jun 27;3(19):
pubmed: 32123782