Hand-opening feedback for myoelectric forearm prostheses: Performance in virtual grasping tasks influenced by different levels of distraction

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 49, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 1517-1526

  Witteveen, Heidi J B ^a   de Rond, Leonie ^a   Rietman, Johan S ^b   Veltink, Peter H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b ROESSINGH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Attentional demands; Auditory tasks; Grasping performance; Grasping task; Hand opening; Hand opening feedback; Myoelectric forearm prosthesis; Secondary tasks; Vibrotactile stimulation; Virtual setup

Indexed keywords

ATTENTIONAL DEMANDS; AUDITORY TASKS; GRASPING PERFORMANCE; GRASPING TASK; HAND OPENING; SECONDARY TASKS; VIBROTACTILE; VIRTUAL SETUP;

SENSORY FEEDBACK;

MYOELECTRICALLY CONTROLLED PROSTHETICS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISTRACTIBILITY; FEMALE; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; MYOELECTRICALLY CONTROLLED PROSTHESIS; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSORY FEEDBACK; TASK PERFORMANCE; TOUCH; VIBRATION; VIBROTACTILE FEEDBACK; VISUAL FEEDBACK;

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEEDBACK, SENSORY; FEMALE; FOREARM; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84874345191     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: 19381352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2011.12.0243     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Phillips CA. Sensory feedback control of upper- and lowerextremity motor prostheses. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 1988; 16(2):105-40. [PMID:3053043]
2. Plettenburg DH, Herder JL. Voluntary closing: A promising opening in hand prosthetics. Technol Disabil. 2003; 15:85-94.
3. Szeto AY. Comparison of codes for sensory feedback using electrocutaneous tracking. Ann Biomed Eng. 1977;5(4): 367-83. [PMID:607824] http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02367316
4. Pons JL, Ceres R, Rocon E, Reynaerts D, Saro B, Levin S, Van Moorleghem W. Objectives and technological approach to the development of the multifunctional MANUS upper limb prosthesis. Robotica. 2005;23(3):301-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0263574704001328
5. Atkins DJ, Heard DC, Donovan W. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot. 1996;8(1):2-11.
6. Peerdeman B, Boere D, Witteveen H, in 't Veld RH, Hermens H, Stramigioli S, Rietman H, Veltink P, Misra S. Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6): 719-37. [PMID:21938658] http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2010.08.0161
7. Mann RW, Reimers SD. Kinesthetic sensing for EMG controlled Boston arm. IEEE Trans Man Mach Syst. 1970;11: 110-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMMS.1970.299971
8. Alles DS. Information transmission by phantom sensations. IEEE Trans Man Mach Syst. 1970;11(1):85-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TMMS.1970.299967
9. Dhillon GS, Horch KW. Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2005;13(4):468-72. [PMID:16425828] http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2005.856072
10. Prior RE, Lyman J. Electrocutaneous feedback for artificial limbs. Summary progress report. February 1, 1974, through July 31, 1975. Bull Prosthet Res. 1975;(10-24):3-37. [PMID:1227686]
11. Kaczmarek KA, Webster JG, Bach-y-Rita P, Tompkins WJ. Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitution systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991;38(1):1-16. [PMID:2026426] http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/10.68204
12. Jones LA, Sarter NB. Tactile displays: guidance for their design and application. Hum Factors. 2008;50(1):90-111. [PMID:18354974] http://dx.doi.org/10.1518/001872008X250638
13. Blank A, Okamura AM, Kuchenbecker KJ. Effects of proprioceptive motion feedback on sighted and non-sighted control of a virtual hand prosthesis. Proceedings of the Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems; 2008 Mar 13-14; Reno, NV.
14. Kuchenbecker KJ, Gurari N, Okamura AM. Effects of visual and proprioceptive motion feedback on human control of targeted movement. Proceedings of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2007 Jun 13-15; Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
15. Asghari Oskoei M, Hu H. Myoelectric control systems-a survey. Biomed Signal Process Control. 2007;2(4):275-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2007.07.009
16. Cipriani C, Zaccone F, Micera S, Carrozza MC. On the shared control of an EMG-controlled prosthetic hand: analysis of user-prosthesis interaction. IEEE Trans Robot. 2008; 24(1):170-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2007.910708
17. Huang HJ, Mercer VS. Dual-task methodology: applications in studies of cognitive and motor performance in adults and children. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2001;13(3):133-40. [PMID:17053670] http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001577-200110000-00005
18. Wright DL, Kemp TL. The dual-task methodology and assessing the attentional demands of ambulation with walking devices. Phys Ther. 1992;72(4):306-15. [PMID:1584862]
19. Schmidt RA. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 1988.
20. Stepp CE, Matsuoka Y. Relative to direct haptic feedback, remote vibrotactile feedback improves but slows object manipulation. Proceedings of the 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 2010 Aug 31-Sep 4; Buenos Aires, Argentina.
21. Witteveen HJ, Droog EA, Rietman JS, Veltink PH. Vibroand electrotactile user feedback on hand opening for myoelectric forearm prostheses. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012; 59(8):2219-26. [PMID:22645262] http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2012.2200678
22. Pylatiuk C, Kargov A, Schulz S. Design and evaluation of a low-cost force feedback system for myoelectric prosthetic hands. J Prosthet Orthot. 2006;18(2):57-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00008526-200604000-00007
23. Wheeler J, Bark K, Savall J, Cutkosky M. Investigation of rotational skin stretch for proprioceptive feedback with application to myoelectric systems. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2010;18(1):58-66. [PMID:20071271] http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2009.2039602
24. Langley GB, Sheppeard H. The visual analogue scale: its use in pain measurement. Rheumatol Int. 1985;5(4):145-48. [PMID:4048757] http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00541514
25. Gescheider GA. Psychophysics: Method, theory, and application. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): L. Erlbaum Associates; 1985.
26. Stepp CE, Chang C, Malhotra M, Matsuoka Y. Vibrotactile feedback aids EMG control of object manipulation. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 2011 Aug 30-Sep 3; Boston, MA.
27. Halsband U, Lange RK. Motor learning in man: a review of functional and clinical studies. J Physiol Paris. 2006;99(4-6): 414-24. [PMID:16730432] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2006.03.007