A compact system for simultaneous stimulation and recording for closed-loop myoelectric control.
Closed-loop control
Dynamic blanking
Electrotactile stimulation
Myoelectric prosthesis
Sensory feedback
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:
25 05 2021
25 05 2021
Historique:
received:
07
12
2020
accepted:
10
05
2021
entrez:
26
5
2021
pubmed:
27
5
2021
medline:
20
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite important advancements in control and mechatronics of myoelectric prostheses, the communication between the user and his/her bionic limb is still unidirectional, as these systems do not provide somatosensory feedback. Electrotactile stimulation is an attractive technology to close the control loop since it allows flexible modulation of multiple parameters and compact interface design via multi-pad electrodes. However, the stimulation interferes with the recording of myoelectric signals and this can be detrimental to control. We present a novel compact solution for simultaneous recording and stimulation through dynamic blanking of stimulation artefacts. To test the system, a feedback coding scheme communicating wrist rotation and hand aperture was developed specifically to stress the myoelectric control while still providing meaningful information to the subjects. Ten subjects participated in an experiment, where the quality of closed-loop myoelectric control was assessed by controlling a cursor in a two degrees of freedom target-reaching task. The benchmark performance with visual feedback was compared to that achieved by combining visual feedback and electrotactile stimulation as well as by using electrotactile feedback only. There was no significant difference in performance between visual and combined feedback condition with regards to successfully reached targets, time to reach a target, path efficiency and the number of overshoots. Therefore, the quality of myoelectric control was preserved in spite of the stimulation. As expected, the tactile condition was significantly poorer in completion rate (100/4% and 78/25% for combined and tactile condition, respectively) and time to reach a target (9/2 s and 13/4 s for combined and tactile condition, respectively). However, the performance in the tactile condition was still good, with no significant difference in path efficiency (38/8%) and the number of overshoots (0.5/0.4 overshoots), indicating that the stimulation was meaningful for the subjects and useful for closed-loop control. Overall, the results demonstrated that the developed system can provide robust closed-loop control using electrotactile stimulation. The system supports different encoding schemes and allows placing the recording and stimulation electrodes next to each other. This is an important step towards an integrated solution where the developed unit will be embedded into a prosthetic socket.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite important advancements in control and mechatronics of myoelectric prostheses, the communication between the user and his/her bionic limb is still unidirectional, as these systems do not provide somatosensory feedback. Electrotactile stimulation is an attractive technology to close the control loop since it allows flexible modulation of multiple parameters and compact interface design via multi-pad electrodes. However, the stimulation interferes with the recording of myoelectric signals and this can be detrimental to control.
METHODS
We present a novel compact solution for simultaneous recording and stimulation through dynamic blanking of stimulation artefacts. To test the system, a feedback coding scheme communicating wrist rotation and hand aperture was developed specifically to stress the myoelectric control while still providing meaningful information to the subjects. Ten subjects participated in an experiment, where the quality of closed-loop myoelectric control was assessed by controlling a cursor in a two degrees of freedom target-reaching task. The benchmark performance with visual feedback was compared to that achieved by combining visual feedback and electrotactile stimulation as well as by using electrotactile feedback only.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in performance between visual and combined feedback condition with regards to successfully reached targets, time to reach a target, path efficiency and the number of overshoots. Therefore, the quality of myoelectric control was preserved in spite of the stimulation. As expected, the tactile condition was significantly poorer in completion rate (100/4% and 78/25% for combined and tactile condition, respectively) and time to reach a target (9/2 s and 13/4 s for combined and tactile condition, respectively). However, the performance in the tactile condition was still good, with no significant difference in path efficiency (38/8%) and the number of overshoots (0.5/0.4 overshoots), indicating that the stimulation was meaningful for the subjects and useful for closed-loop control.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the results demonstrated that the developed system can provide robust closed-loop control using electrotactile stimulation. The system supports different encoding schemes and allows placing the recording and stimulation electrodes next to each other. This is an important step towards an integrated solution where the developed unit will be embedded into a prosthetic socket.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34034762
doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00877-5
pii: 10.1186/s12984-021-00877-5
pmc: PMC8146235
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
87Références
Exp Brain Res. 2014 Nov;232(11):3421-9
pubmed: 24992899
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2006 Dec;16(6):541-8
pubmed: 17045489
J Neural Eng. 2019 Apr;16(2):026003
pubmed: 30524028
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011 Apr;19(2):186-92
pubmed: 21193383
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jan 14;117(2):1191-1200
pubmed: 31879342
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Jun 13;12:53
pubmed: 26071402
J Neural Eng. 2019 Apr;16(2):026034
pubmed: 30736030
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2003 Dec;11(4):407-15
pubmed: 14960117
Exp Brain Res. 2019 Feb;237(2):291-311
pubmed: 30506366
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016 Dec;24(12):1314-1322
pubmed: 26584497
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013 Jun;60(6):1563-70
pubmed: 23322756
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:3622-5
pubmed: 24110514
Front Neurosci. 2020 Mar 26;14:263
pubmed: 32273838
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1977 Jul;15(4):363-73
pubmed: 197328
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2013 Jul;21(4):616-23
pubmed: 23193252
Sci Robot. 2018 Apr 25;3(17):
pubmed: 31342002
Front Neurosci. 2016 May 12;10:209
pubmed: 27242413
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2014 Oct;24(5):770-7
pubmed: 25048642
Neuron. 2018 Oct 10;100(1):37-45.e7
pubmed: 30244887
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Apr 09;12:35
pubmed: 25889752
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):719-37
pubmed: 21938658
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 May 30;11:91
pubmed: 24886664
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016 Aug;24(8):827-36
pubmed: 26372430
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991 Jan;38(1):1-16
pubmed: 2026426
IEEE Trans Haptics. 2017 Apr-Jun;10(2):162-172
pubmed: 27775538
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 16;10(1):11793
pubmed: 32678121
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007 Sep;31(3):236-57
pubmed: 17979010
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1981 Sep;19(5):645-53
pubmed: 7334874
Front Neurosci. 2020 Jun 23;14:345
pubmed: 32655344
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017 Jun;14(6):439-447
pubmed: 28532184
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013 Jan;10(1):45-54
pubmed: 23278223
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 29;8(1):9866
pubmed: 29959334
Front Neurosci. 2020 Feb 19;14:120
pubmed: 32140096
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Mar 27;15(1):28
pubmed: 29580245
J Neural Eng. 2016 Aug;13(4):046014
pubmed: 27296902
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;2005:6919-22
pubmed: 17281866
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017 Mar;25(3):183-195
pubmed: 27071179
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Jun 19;12:55
pubmed: 26088323
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003 Jul;50(7):848-54
pubmed: 12848352
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Dec 10;16(1):155
pubmed: 31823792
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014 Sep;11(5):499-511
pubmed: 24928327
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):643-59
pubmed: 21938652
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1982 Apr;29(4):300-8
pubmed: 7068167
IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst. 2013 Apr;7(2):140-8
pubmed: 23853296
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):619-27
pubmed: 21938650
Elife. 2020 Jul 21;9:
pubmed: 32691733
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012 Sep 25;9:66
pubmed: 23009589
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012 Aug;59(8):2219-26
pubmed: 22645262
J Neural Eng. 2020 Aug 14;17(4):046034
pubmed: 32650320
Eur J Transl Myol. 2016 Jun 13;26(3):6069
pubmed: 27990236
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015 Sep;23(5):807-16
pubmed: 25222951
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Sep 15;11:138
pubmed: 25224266
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2016 Aug 04;13(1):73
pubmed: 27488270
J Neural Eng. 2016 Oct;13(5):056010
pubmed: 27547992
Front Neurosci. 2020 May 07;14:389
pubmed: 32477046
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1993 Jan;40(1):82-94
pubmed: 8468080