EMG-driven control in lower limb prostheses: a topic-based systematic review.
Electromyograhy
Legged locomotion
Microprocessored-controlled lower limb prosthesis
Neuro-control
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:
07 05 2022
07 05 2022
Historique:
received:
21
06
2021
accepted:
13
04
2022
entrez:
7
5
2022
pubmed:
8
5
2022
medline:
11
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The inability of users to directly and intuitively control their state-of-the-art commercial prosthesis contributes to a low device acceptance rate. Since Electromyography (EMG)-based control has the potential to address those inabilities, research has flourished on investigating its incorporation in microprocessor-controlled lower limb prostheses (MLLPs). However, despite the proposed benefits of doing so, there is no clear explanation regarding the absence of a commercial product, in contrast to their upper limb counterparts. This manuscript aims to provide a comparative overview of EMG-driven control methods for MLLPs, to identify their prospects and limitations, and to formulate suggestions on future research and development. This is done by systematically reviewing academical studies on EMG MLLPs. In particular, this review is structured by considering four major topics: (1) type of neuro-control, which discusses methods that allow the nervous system to control prosthetic devices through the muscles; (2) type of EMG-driven controllers, which defines the different classes of EMG controllers proposed in the literature; (3) type of neural input and processing, which describes how EMG-driven controllers are implemented; (4) type of performance assessment, which reports the performance of the current state of the art controllers. The obtained results show that the lack of quantitative and standardized measures hinders the possibility to analytically compare the performances of different EMG-driven controllers. In relation to this issue, the real efficacy of EMG-driven controllers for MLLPs have yet to be validated. Nevertheless, in anticipation of the development of a standardized approach for validating EMG MLLPs, the literature suggests that combining multiple neuro-controller types has the potential to develop a more seamless and reliable EMG-driven control. This solution has the promise to retain the high performance of the currently employed non-EMG-driven controllers for rhythmic activities such as walking, whilst improving the performance of volitional activities such as task switching or non-repetitive movements. Although EMG-driven controllers suffer from many drawbacks, such as high sensitivity to noise, recent progress in invasive neural interfaces for prosthetic control (bionics) will allow to build a more reliable connection between the user and the MLLPs. Therefore, advancements in powered MLLPs with integrated EMG-driven control have the potential to strongly reduce the effects of psychosomatic conditions and musculoskeletal degenerative pathologies that are currently affecting lower limb amputees.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The inability of users to directly and intuitively control their state-of-the-art commercial prosthesis contributes to a low device acceptance rate. Since Electromyography (EMG)-based control has the potential to address those inabilities, research has flourished on investigating its incorporation in microprocessor-controlled lower limb prostheses (MLLPs). However, despite the proposed benefits of doing so, there is no clear explanation regarding the absence of a commercial product, in contrast to their upper limb counterparts.
OBJECTIVE AND METHODOLOGIES
This manuscript aims to provide a comparative overview of EMG-driven control methods for MLLPs, to identify their prospects and limitations, and to formulate suggestions on future research and development. This is done by systematically reviewing academical studies on EMG MLLPs. In particular, this review is structured by considering four major topics: (1) type of neuro-control, which discusses methods that allow the nervous system to control prosthetic devices through the muscles; (2) type of EMG-driven controllers, which defines the different classes of EMG controllers proposed in the literature; (3) type of neural input and processing, which describes how EMG-driven controllers are implemented; (4) type of performance assessment, which reports the performance of the current state of the art controllers.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The obtained results show that the lack of quantitative and standardized measures hinders the possibility to analytically compare the performances of different EMG-driven controllers. In relation to this issue, the real efficacy of EMG-driven controllers for MLLPs have yet to be validated. Nevertheless, in anticipation of the development of a standardized approach for validating EMG MLLPs, the literature suggests that combining multiple neuro-controller types has the potential to develop a more seamless and reliable EMG-driven control. This solution has the promise to retain the high performance of the currently employed non-EMG-driven controllers for rhythmic activities such as walking, whilst improving the performance of volitional activities such as task switching or non-repetitive movements. Although EMG-driven controllers suffer from many drawbacks, such as high sensitivity to noise, recent progress in invasive neural interfaces for prosthetic control (bionics) will allow to build a more reliable connection between the user and the MLLPs. Therefore, advancements in powered MLLPs with integrated EMG-driven control have the potential to strongly reduce the effects of psychosomatic conditions and musculoskeletal degenerative pathologies that are currently affecting lower limb amputees.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35526003
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01019-1
pii: 10.1186/s12984-022-01019-1
pmc: PMC9077893
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
43Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Ann Rheum Dis. 1978 Jun;37(3):252-4
pubmed: 150823
Am J Public Health. 1999 Aug;89(8):1222-7
pubmed: 10432910
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Apr;(361):15-22
pubmed: 10212591
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991 Oct;23(10):1187-93
pubmed: 1758296
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013 Jun;2013:6650499
pubmed: 24187314
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:2545-8
pubmed: 25570509
Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2006 May;6(2):67-70
pubmed: 16879118
Biol Cybern. 2004 Feb;90(2):146-55
pubmed: 14999481
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:6926-9
pubmed: 19964458
Med Devices (Auckl). 2016 Jul 27;9:247-55
pubmed: 27555799
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2021 Oct;89:105457
pubmed: 34454327
J Physiother. 2014 Dec;60(4):224-31
pubmed: 25450484
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2006 Dec;16(6):541-8
pubmed: 17045489
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:2997-3000
pubmed: 22254971
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012 Oct;59(10):2716-25
pubmed: 22996721
JAMA. 2015 Jun 9;313(22):2244-52
pubmed: 26057285
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2009 Jan;56(1):65-73
pubmed: 19224720
J Neurosci. 2005 May 25;25(21):5195-206
pubmed: 15917459
QJM. 2008 Apr;101(4):251-9
pubmed: 18281705
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018 Jul;2018:2128-2131
pubmed: 30440824
Front Neurosci. 2016 May 12;10:209
pubmed: 27242413
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Jan 05;12:1
pubmed: 25557982
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Jun;1198:21-34
pubmed: 20536917
Front Neurol. 2017 Sep 11;8:470
pubmed: 28955294
Neural Netw. 2008 May;21(4):654-66
pubmed: 18499394
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2009 Oct;19(5):e362-9
pubmed: 18829346
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(4):317-31
pubmed: 20803401
South Med J. 2002 Aug;95(8):875-83
pubmed: 12190225
J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2005 Sep;10(3):229-58
pubmed: 16221284
Biomed Eng Online. 2016 Dec 19;15(Suppl 3):140
pubmed: 28105948
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2011 Feb;56(1):45-51
pubmed: 21303189
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49(6):831-42
pubmed: 23299255
Med Biol Eng. 1972 Jan;10(1):61-73
pubmed: 5044871
Physiol Meas. 2009 Sep;30(9):931-46
pubmed: 19661566
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987 Nov;67(5):402-11
pubmed: 2444408
PM R. 2011 Jan;3(1):55-67
pubmed: 21257135
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975480
pubmed: 22275678
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Sep;82(9):1238-44
pubmed: 11552197
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2016 Aug;2016:5469-5472
pubmed: 28269495
J Neural Eng. 2014 Oct;11(5):056021
pubmed: 25242111
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010 Apr;18(2):164-73
pubmed: 20071268
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Dec;86(12):977-87
pubmed: 18090439
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2011 Oct;58(10):2867-75
pubmed: 21768042
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2011 Jan;58(1):144-51
pubmed: 20805047
J Med Eng Technol. 1988 Jul-Aug;12(4):143-51
pubmed: 3057209
Phys Ther. 2007 Dec;87(12):1642-50
pubmed: 17911274
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2009;2009:4755-8
pubmed: 19964650
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018 Mar 15;15(1):23
pubmed: 29544501
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010 Mar;57(3):542-51
pubmed: 19846361
Gait Posture. 2007 Feb;25(2):250-8
pubmed: 16740390
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2012;2012:2768-71
pubmed: 23366499
Phys Ther. 2002 Jan;82(1):69-83
pubmed: 11784280
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:5452-5
pubmed: 22255571
Nat Biomed Eng. 2021 May 31;:
pubmed: 34059810
J Biomed Eng. 1990 May;12(3):178-82
pubmed: 2348704
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2013 Oct;60(10):2745-50
pubmed: 23708765
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Jun 19;10(1):62
pubmed: 23782953
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016 Feb;24(2):226-34
pubmed: 25826807
J Sci Med Sport. 2018 Nov;21(11):1154-1161
pubmed: 30318056
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:1571-4
pubmed: 24110001
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2020 Jan;67(1):277-290
pubmed: 31021749
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:1662-5
pubmed: 25570293
J Neural Eng. 2021 Jul 27;18(4):
pubmed: 34229307
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(7):963-72
pubmed: 20104419
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016 May;24(5):573-81
pubmed: 26057851
Int J Rob Res. 2008 Feb 1;27(2):263-273
pubmed: 19898683
J Physiol. 2008 Mar 1;586(5):1239-45
pubmed: 18202098
J Neural Eng. 2014 Oct;11(5):056027
pubmed: 25246110
Sensors (Basel). 2018 Aug 01;18(8):
pubmed: 30071617
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 26;369(13):1237-42
pubmed: 24066744
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011 Feb;19(1):71-8
pubmed: 20952344
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2003 Jul;50(7):848-54
pubmed: 12848352
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 May 27;366(1570):1621-31
pubmed: 21502131
IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron. 2009;14(6):667-676
pubmed: 20054424
Diabet Med. 2011 Oct;28(10):1144-53
pubmed: 21388445
Sci Transl Med. 2013 Nov 6;5(210):210ps15
pubmed: 24197732
Artif Limbs. 1955 Jan;2(1):35-60
pubmed: 14351063
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):643-59
pubmed: 21938652
Med Eng Phys. 2012 May;34(4):397-408
pubmed: 22177895
Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021 Nov;16(8):821-830
pubmed: 32189537
Phys Ther. 2002 Sep;82(9):856-65
pubmed: 12201800
Gait Posture. 2003 Apr;17(2):142-51
pubmed: 12633775
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013 Jun;2013:6650391
pubmed: 24187210
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2013 Sep;17(5):907-14
pubmed: 25055369
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013 Jun;2013:6650389
pubmed: 24187208
Biol Cybern. 1987;57(3):169-85
pubmed: 3676355
Front Neurosci. 2014 Feb 25;8:24
pubmed: 24616655
Biol Cybern. 2010 May;102(5):373-87
pubmed: 20217427
Nat Neurosci. 1999 Jun;2(6):501-2
pubmed: 10448212
Sensors (Basel). 2016 Aug 17;16(8):
pubmed: 27548165
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020 Mar 03;8:158
pubmed: 32195238
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2015 Aug;33:25-33
pubmed: 25643847
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(1):15-29
pubmed: 18566923
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2019 Jul;27(7):1473-1482
pubmed: 31180864