Human-prosthesis cooperation: combining adaptive prosthesis control with visual feedback guided gait.
Gait
Human-in-the-loop optimization
Powered prosthesis tuning
Transfemoral amputee
Visual 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:
14 12 2022
14 12 2022
Historique:
received:
18
05
2022
accepted:
23
11
2022
entrez:
14
12
2022
pubmed:
15
12
2022
medline:
17
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Personalizing prosthesis control is often structured as human-in-the-loop optimization. However, gait performance is influenced by both human control and intelligent prosthesis control. Hence, we need to consider both human and prosthesis control, and their cooperation, to achieve desired gait patterns. In this study, we developed a novel paradigm that engages human gait control via user-fed visual feedback (FB) of stance time to cooperate with automatic prosthesis control tuning. Three initial questions were studied: (1) does user control of gait timing (via visual FB) help the prosthesis tuning algorithm to converge faster? (2) in turn, does the prosthesis control influence the user's ability to reach and maintain the target stance time defined by the feedback? and (3) does the prosthesis control parameters tuned with extended stance time on prosthesis side allow the user to maintain this potentially beneficial behavior even after feedback is removed (short- and long-term retention)? A reinforcement learning algorithm was used to achieve prosthesis control to meet normative knee kinematics in walking. A visual FB system cued the user to control prosthesis-side stance time to facilitate the prosthesis tuning goal. Seven individuals without amputation (AB) and four individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) walked with a powered knee prosthesis on a treadmill. Participants completed prosthesis auto-tuning with three visual feedback conditions: no FB, self-selected stance time FB (SS FB), and increased stance time FB (Inc FB). The retention of FB effects was studied by comparing the gait performance across three different prosthesis controls, tuned with different visual FB. (1) Human control of gait timing reduced the tuning duration in individuals without amputation, but not for individuals with TFA. (2) The change of prosthesis control did not influence users' ability to reach and maintain the visual FB goal. (3) All participants increased their prosthesis-side stance time with the feedback and maintain it right after feedback was removed. However, in the post-test, the prosthesis control parameters tuned with visual FB only supported a few participants with longer stance time and better stance time symmetry. The study provides novel insights on human-prosthesis interaction when cooperating in walking, which may guide the future successful adoption of this paradigm in prosthesis control personalization or human-in-the-loop optimization to improve the prosthesis user's gait performance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Personalizing prosthesis control is often structured as human-in-the-loop optimization. However, gait performance is influenced by both human control and intelligent prosthesis control. Hence, we need to consider both human and prosthesis control, and their cooperation, to achieve desired gait patterns. In this study, we developed a novel paradigm that engages human gait control via user-fed visual feedback (FB) of stance time to cooperate with automatic prosthesis control tuning. Three initial questions were studied: (1) does user control of gait timing (via visual FB) help the prosthesis tuning algorithm to converge faster? (2) in turn, does the prosthesis control influence the user's ability to reach and maintain the target stance time defined by the feedback? and (3) does the prosthesis control parameters tuned with extended stance time on prosthesis side allow the user to maintain this potentially beneficial behavior even after feedback is removed (short- and long-term retention)?
METHODS
A reinforcement learning algorithm was used to achieve prosthesis control to meet normative knee kinematics in walking. A visual FB system cued the user to control prosthesis-side stance time to facilitate the prosthesis tuning goal. Seven individuals without amputation (AB) and four individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) walked with a powered knee prosthesis on a treadmill. Participants completed prosthesis auto-tuning with three visual feedback conditions: no FB, self-selected stance time FB (SS FB), and increased stance time FB (Inc FB). The retention of FB effects was studied by comparing the gait performance across three different prosthesis controls, tuned with different visual FB.
RESULTS
(1) Human control of gait timing reduced the tuning duration in individuals without amputation, but not for individuals with TFA. (2) The change of prosthesis control did not influence users' ability to reach and maintain the visual FB goal. (3) All participants increased their prosthesis-side stance time with the feedback and maintain it right after feedback was removed. However, in the post-test, the prosthesis control parameters tuned with visual FB only supported a few participants with longer stance time and better stance time symmetry.
CONCLUSIONS
The study provides novel insights on human-prosthesis interaction when cooperating in walking, which may guide the future successful adoption of this paradigm in prosthesis control personalization or human-in-the-loop optimization to improve the prosthesis user's gait performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36517814
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01118-z
pii: 10.1186/s12984-022-01118-z
pmc: PMC9753428
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
140Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01EB024570
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Sci Robot. 2020 Jul 22;5(44):
pubmed: 33022611
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Mar 14;20(6):
pubmed: 32183338
Technol Innov. 2016 Sep;18(2-3):99-113
pubmed: 28066520
Gait Posture. 2009 Oct;30(3):322-7
pubmed: 19576776
J Biomech. 2016 Oct 3;49(14):3452-3459
pubmed: 27702444
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Nov 29;16(1):151
pubmed: 31783759
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2019 Jul;2019:3163-3166
pubmed: 31946559
Int J Rob Res. 2008 Feb 1;27(2):263-273
pubmed: 19898683
Hum Mov Sci. 2015 Apr;40:248-63
pubmed: 25617994
IEEE Trans Robot. 2020 Dec;36(6):1649-1668
pubmed: 33299386
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Sep 11;16(1):112
pubmed: 31511010
J Orthop Res. 1990 May;8(3):383-92
pubmed: 2324857
Hum Mov Sci. 2019 Jun 4;66:425-439
pubmed: 31174017
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Feb 22;12:21
pubmed: 25889201
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:3020-6
pubmed: 18002631
Science. 2017 Jun 23;356(6344):1280-1284
pubmed: 28642437
Curr Opin Biomed Eng. 2021 Dec;20:
pubmed: 34458654
R Soc Open Sci. 2021 May 5;8(5):202020
pubmed: 34035945
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2010 Mar;57(3):542-51
pubmed: 19846361
Gait Posture. 2007 Feb;25(2):250-8
pubmed: 16740390
IEEE Trans Cybern. 2020 Jun;50(6):2346-2356
pubmed: 30668514
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(3):361-73
pubmed: 19675988
Ann Biomed Eng. 2016 May;44(5):1613-24
pubmed: 26407703
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2020 Apr;28(4):904-913
pubmed: 32149646
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2020 Dec;80:105171
pubmed: 32932017
Sci Robot. 2022 Mar 30;7(64):eabj3487
pubmed: 35353602