Experimental evaluation of the impact of sEMG interfaces in enhancing embodiment of virtual myoelectric prostheses.
Embodiment
Surface EMG
Upper-limb prosthesis
Virtual reality
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:
16 Apr 2024
16 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
06
11
2023
accepted:
03
04
2024
medline:
17
4
2024
pubmed:
17
4
2024
entrez:
16
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite recent technological advances that have led to sophisticated bionic prostheses, attaining embodied solutions still remains a challenge. Recently, the investigation of prosthetic embodiment has become a topic of interest in the research community, which deals with enhancing the perception of artificial limbs as part of users' own body. Surface electromyography (sEMG) interfaces have emerged as a promising technology for enhancing upper-limb prosthetic control. However, little is known about the impact of these sEMG interfaces on users' experience regarding embodiment and their interaction with different functional levels. To investigate this aspect, a comparison is conducted among sEMG configurations with different number of sensors (4 and 16 channels) and different time delay. We used a regression algorithm to simultaneously control hand closing/opening and forearm pronation/supination in an immersive virtual reality environment. The experimental evaluation includes 24 able-bodied subjects and one prosthesis user. We assess functionality with the Target Achievement Control test, and the sense of embodiment with a metric for the users perception of self-location, together with a standard survey. Among the four tested conditions, results proved a higher subjective embodiment when participants used sEMG interfaces employing an increased number of sensors. Regarding functionality, significant improvement over time is observed in the same conditions, independently of the time delay implemented. Our work indicates that a sufficient number of sEMG sensors improves both, functional and subjective embodiment outcomes. This prompts discussion regarding the potential relationship between these two aspects present in bionic integration. Similar embodiment outcomes are observed in the prosthesis user, showing also differences due to the time delay, and demonstrating the influence of sEMG interfaces on the sense of agency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38627772
doi: 10.1186/s12984-024-01352-7
pii: 10.1186/s12984-024-01352-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
57Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Cordella F, Ciancio AL, Sacchetti R, Davalli A, Cutti AG, Guglielmelli E, et al. Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Front Neurosci. 2016;10:209.
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00209
pubmed: 27242413
pmcid: 4864250
Mendez V, Iberite F, Shokur S, Micera S. Current solutions and future trends for robotic prosthetic hands. Annu Rev Control Robot Auton Syst. 2021;4:595–627.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-control-071020-104336
Bekrater-Bodmann R. Factors associated with prosthesis embodiment and its importance for prosthetic satisfaction in lower limb amputees. Front Neurorobot. 2021;14: 604376.
doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2020.604376
pubmed: 33519413
pmcid: 7843383
Gouzien A, De Vignemont F, Touillet A, Martinet N, De Graaf J, Jarrasse N, et al. Reachability and the sense of embodiment in amputees using prostheses. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–10.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-05094-6
Farina D, Vujaklija I, Brånemark R, Bull AM, Dietl H, Graimann B, et al. Toward higher-performance bionic limbs for wider clinical use. Nat Biomed Eng. 2021:1-13.
Zbinden J, Lendaro E, Ortiz-Catalan M. Prosthetic embodiment: systematic review on definitions, measures, and experimental paradigms. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19(1):37.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01006-6
pubmed: 35346251
pmcid: 8962549
Zbinden J, Lendaro E, Ortiz-Catalan M. A multi-dimensional framework for prosthetic embodiment: a perspective for translational research. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2022;19(1):122.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01102-7
pubmed: 36369004
pmcid: 9652836
Sensinger JW, Dosen S. A review of sensory feedback in upper-limb prostheses from the perspective of human motor control. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:345.
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00345
pubmed: 32655344
pmcid: 7324654
Scheme E, Englehart K. Electromyogram pattern recognition for control of powered upper-limb prostheses: state of the art and challenges for clinical use. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6).
Castellini C, Van Der Smagt P. Surface EMG in advanced hand prosthetics. Biol Cybern. 2009;100:35–47.
doi: 10.1007/s00422-008-0278-1
pubmed: 19015872
Muceli S, Farina D. Simultaneous and proportional estimation of hand kinematics from EMG during mirrored movements at multiple degrees-of-freedom. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011;20(3):371–8.
doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2011.2178039
pubmed: 22180516
Merletti R, Holobar A, Farina D. Analysis of motor units with high-density surface electromyography. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008;18(6):879–90.
doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.09.002
pubmed: 19004645
Capsi-Morales P, Piazza C, Catalano MG, Grioli G, Schiavon L, Fiaschi E, et al. Comparison between rigid and soft poly-articulated prosthetic hands in non-expert myo-electric users shows advantages of soft robotics. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1–15.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02562-y
Terlaak B, Bouwsema H, van der Sluis CK, Bongers RM. Virtual training of the myosignal. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(9): e0137161.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137161
pubmed: 26351838
pmcid: 4564211
Woodward RB, Hargrove LJ. Adapting myoelectric control in real-time using a virtual environment. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019;16(1):1–12.
doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0480-5
Murray CD. Embodiment and prosthetics. In: Psychoprosthetics. Springer; 2008. p. 119–29.
Maimon-Mor RO, Makin TR. Is an artificial limb embodied as a hand? Brain decoding in prosthetic limb users. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(6): e3000729.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000729
pubmed: 32511238
pmcid: 7302856
Page DM, George JA, Kluger DT, Duncan C, Wendelken S, Davis T, et al. Motor control and sensory feedback enhance prosthesis embodiment and reduce phantom pain after long-term hand amputation. Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:352.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00352
pubmed: 30319374
pmcid: 6166773
Lopez C, Halje P, Blanke O. Body ownership and embodiment: vestibular and multisensory mechanisms. Neurophysiol Clin. 2008;38:149–61.
doi: 10.1016/j.neucli.2007.12.006
pubmed: 18539248
Arzy S, Thut G, Mohr C, Michel CM, Blanke O. Neural basis of embodiment: distinct contributions of temporoparietal junction and extrastriate body area. J Neurosci. 2006;26(31):8074–81.
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0745-06.2006
pubmed: 16885221
pmcid: 6673771
Newport R, Preston C. Pulling the finger off disrupts agency, embodiment and peripersonal space. Perception. 2010;39(9):1296–8 (PMID: 21125957).
doi: 10.1068/p6742
pubmed: 21125957
Kilteni K, Groten R, Slater M. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2012;21(4):373–87.
doi: 10.1162/PRES_a_00124
Beckerle P, Castellini C, Lenggenhager B. Robotic interfaces for cognitive psychology and embodiment research: a research roadmap. WIREs Cognitive Science. 2019;10(2).
Christ O, Reiner M. Perspectives and possible applications of the rubber hand and virtual hand illusion in non-invasive rehabilitation: technological improvements and their consequences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014;44:33–44.
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.02.013
pubmed: 24661983
Tsay A, Savage G, Allen TJ, Proske U. Limb position sense, proprioceptive drift and muscle thixotropy at the human elbow joint: proprioceptive drift at the human elbow joint. J Physiol. 2014;592(12):2679–94.
doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2013.269365
pubmed: 24665096
pmcid: 4080946
Botvinick M, Cohen J. Rubber ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature. 1998;391(6669):756–6.
doi: 10.1038/35784
pubmed: 9486643
Fröhner J, Salvietti G, Beckerle P, Prattichizzo D. Can wearable haptic devices foster the embodiment of virtual limbs? IEEE Trans Haptics. 2018;12(3):339–49.
doi: 10.1109/TOH.2018.2889497
pubmed: 30582554
Fribourg R, Argelaguet F, Hoyet L, Lecuyer A. Studying the Sense of Embodiment in VR Shared Experiences. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE;. p. 273-80.
Bovet S, Debarba HG, Herbelin B, Molla E, Boulic R. The critical role of self-contact for embodiment in virtual reality. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics. 2018;24(4):1428–36.
doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794658
Wenk N, Penalver-Andres J, Buetler KA, Nef T, Müri RM, Marchal-Crespo L. Effect of immersive visualization technologies on cognitive load, motivation, usability, and embodiment. Virtual Reality. 2021.
Engdahl SM, Meehan SK, Gates DH. Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–10.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-72470-0
Fröhner J, Beckerle P, Endo S, Hirche S. An embodiment paradigm in evaluation of human-in-the-loop control. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2019;51(34):104–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.01.036
Simon AM, Hargrove LJ, Lock BA. Kuiken TA. The Target Achievement Control Test: evaluating real-time myoelectric pattern recognition control of a multifunctional upper-limb prosthesis; 2014. p. 17.
Longo MR, Schüür F, Kammers MPM, Tsakiris M, Haggard P. What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition. 2008;107(3):978–98.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.004
pubmed: 18262508
Nowak M, Vujaklija I, Sturma A, Castellini C, Farina D. Simultaneous and proportional real-time myocontrol of up to three degrees of freedom of the wrist and hand. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2022.
Smith LH, Hargrove LJ, Lock BA, Kuiken TA. Determining the optimal window length for pattern recognition-based myoelectric control: balancing the competing effects of classification error and controller delay. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011;19(2):186–92.
doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2010.2100828
pubmed: 21193383
Gijsberts A, Bohra R, Sierra González D, Werner A, Nowak M, Caputo B, et al. Stable myoelectric control of a hand prosthesis using non-linear incremental learning. Front Neurorobotics. 2014:8.
Strazzulla I, Nowak M, Controzzi M, Cipriani C, Castellini C. Online bimanual manipulation using surface electromyography and incremental learning. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2016;25(3):227–34.
doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2554884
pubmed: 28113557
Nissler C, Nowak M, Connan M, Büttner S, Vogel J, Kossyk I, et al. Vita-an everyday virtual reality setup for prosthetics and upper-limb rehabilitation. J Neural Eng. 2019;16(2): 026039.
doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aaf35f
pubmed: 30864550
Jaeger L, Baptista RS, Basla C, Capsi-Morales P, Kim YK, Nakajima S, et al. How the CYBATHLON competition has advanced assistive technologies. Annu Rev Control Robot Auton Syst. 2023;6:447–76.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-control-071822-095355
Tsakiris M, Haggard P. The rubber hand illusion revisited: visuotactile integration and self-attribution. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005;31(1):80.
doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80
pubmed: 15709864
Kammers MP, de Vignemont F, Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC. The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(1):204–11.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.07.028
pubmed: 18762203
Davies AMA, White RC, Thew G, Aimola NM, Davies M. Visual capture of action, experience of ownership, and the illusion of self-touch: a new rubber hand paradigm. Perception. 2010;39(6):830–8.
doi: 10.1068/p6610
pubmed: 20698477
Jsselsteijn WA, de Kort YAW, Haans A. Is this my hand I see before me? The rubber hand illusion in reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2006;15(4):455–64.
doi: 10.1162/pres.15.4.455
Kammers MPM, de Vignemont F, Verhagen L, Dijkerman HC. The rubber hand illusion in action. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47(1):204–11.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.07.028
pubmed: 18762203
Rohde M, Di Luca M, Ernst MO. The rubber hand illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLOS ONE. 2011;6(6):1–9.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021659
Yuan Y, Steed A, Is the rubber hand illusion induced by immersive virtual reality? In IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR). Boston, MA, USA: IEEE. 2010;2010:95–102.
Romano D, Maravita A, Perugini M. Psychometric properties of the embodiment scale for the rubber hand illusion and its relation with individual differences. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):5029.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84595-x
pubmed: 33658576
pmcid: 7930179
Fougner A, Stavdahl O, Kyberd PJ, Losier YG, Parker PA. Control of upper limb prostheses: terminology and proportional myoelectric control-a review. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012;20(5):663–77.
doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2196711
pubmed: 22665514