The impact of the stimulation frequency on closed-loop control with electrotactile feedback

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Paredes, Liliana P ^a   Dosen, Strahinja ^b   Rattay, Frank ^c   Graimann, Bernhard ^d   Farina, Dario ^b  

^a IRCCS Fondazione Ospedale San Camillo   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^c VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

^d Otto Bock HealthCare GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Closed loop control; Electrocutaneous stimulation; Electrotactile stimulation; Sensory feedback in prosthetics; Sensory substitution; Stimulation frequency

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLOSED LOOP CONTROL; CONCENTRIC ELECTRODE; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; ELECTROTACTILE FEEDBACK; EYE TRACKING; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FOREARM; HAND PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NERVE STIMULATOR; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE VALUE; SAMPLING ERROR; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TACTILE DISCRIMINATION; TACTILE FEEDBACK; TACTILE STIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TOUCH; VISUAL FEEDBACK; FEMALE; LIMB PROSTHESIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SENSORY FEEDBACK;

ADULT; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; FEEDBACK, SENSORY; FEMALE; FOREARM; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN;

EID: 84928007642     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17430003     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12984-015-0022-8     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Haruno M, Wolpert DM, Kawato M. Mosaic model for sensorimotor learning and control. Neural Comput. 2001;13:2201-20.
2. Bays PM, Wolpert DM. Computational principles of sensorimotor control that minimize uncertainty and variability. J Physiol. 2007;578(Pt 2):387-96.
3. Peerdeman B, Boere D, Witteveen H, Misra S. Huis in 'tVeld R, Hermens H, et al. Myoelectric forearm prostheses: State of the art from a user-centered perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48:719.
4. Kim J-K, Zatorre RJ. Tactile-auditory shape learning engages the lateral occipital complex. J Neurosci. 2011;31:7848-56.
5. Bach-y-Rita P. W Kercel S. Sensory substitution and the human-machine interface. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7:541-6.
6. Bach-y-Rita P. Neurophysiological basis of a tactile vision-substitution system. IEEE Trans Man Mach Syst. 1970;11:108-10.
7. Kaczmarek KA, Webster JG, Bach-y-Rita P, Tompkins WJ. Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitution systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991;38:1-16.
8. Saunders I, Vijayakumar S. The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:60.
9. Higashiyama A, Hayashi M. Localization of electrocutaneous stimuli on the fingers and forearm: effects of electrode configuration and body axis. Percept Psychophys. 1993;54:108-20.
10. Solomonow M, Lyman J. Electrotactile stimulation relevant to sensory-motor rehabilitation: a progress report. Bull Prosthet Res. 1980;10-33:63-72.
11. Uttal W, Krissoff M. Response of the somesthetic system to patterned trains of electrical stimuli, an approach to the problem of sensory coding. Ski Senses DR Kenshalo, Ed Charles C. 1968:262-303.
12. Sachs RM, Miller JD, Grant KW. Perceived magnitude of multiple electrocutaneous pulses. Percept Psychophys. 1980;28:255-62.
13. Sang CN, Max MB, Gracely RH. Stability and reliability of detection thresholds for human A-Beta and A-delta sensory afferents determined by cutaneous electrical stimulation. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003;25:64-73.
14. Geng B, Yoshida K, Jensen W. Impacts of selected stimulation patterns on the perception threshold in electrocutaneous stimulation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:9.
15. Jelinek HF, McIntyre R. Electric pulse frequency and magnitude of perceived sensation during electrocutaneous forearm stimulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:1378-82.
16. Szeto AY, Lyman J, Prior RE. Electrocutaneous pulse rate and pulse width psychometric functions for sensory communications. Hum Factors. 1979;21:241-9.
17. Anani AB, Ikeda K, Körner LM. Human ability to discriminate various parameters in afferent electrical nerve stimulation with particular reference to prostheses sensory feedback. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1977;15:363-73.
18. Rahal L, Cha J, El Saddik A. Continuous tactile perception for vibrotactile displays. IEEE Int Work Robot Sensors Environ. 2009;2009:86-91.
19. Szeto AY. Relationship between pulse rate and pulse width for a constant-intensity level of electrocutaneous stimulation. Ann Biomed Eng. 1985;13:373-83.
20. Prior RE, Lyman J, Case PA, Scott CM. Supplemental sensory feedback for the VA/NU myoelectric hand. Background and preliminary designs. Bull Prosthet Res. 1976;10:170-91.
21. Shannon GF. A myoelectrically-controlled prosthesis with sensory feedback. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1979;17:73-80.
22. Scott RN, Brittain RH, Caldwell RR, Cameron AB, Dunfield VA. Sensory-feedback system compatible with myoelectric control. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1980;18:65-9.
23. Elkind JI, Forgie CD. Characteristics of the human operator in simple manual control systems. IRE Trans Autom Control. 1959;AC-4:44-55.
24. McRuer D, Weir D. Theory of manual vehicular control. IEEE Trans Man Mach Syst. 1969;10:257-91.
25. Schori T. Tracking performance as a function of precision of electrocutaneous feedback information. Hum Factors J Hum Factors. 1970;12:447-52.
26. Hofmann MA, Heimstra NW. Tracking performance with visual, auditory, or electrocutaneous displays. Hum Factors. 1972;14:131-8.
27. Schori TR. A comparison of visual, auditory, and cutaneous tracking displays when divided attention is required to a cross-adaptive loading task. Ergonomics. 1973;16:153-8.
28. Schmid HP, Bekey GA. Tactile information processing by human operators in control systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1978;8:860-6.
29. Matlab. Real Time Windows Target User's Guide. 2013.
30. Saunders FA. Information transmission across the skin: high-resolution tactile sensory aids for the deaf and the blind. Int J Neurosci. 1983;19:21-8.
31. Hartmann C, Dosen S, Amsuess S, Farina D. Closed-loop control of myoelectric prostheses with electrotactile feedback: influence of stimulation artifact and blanking. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014;4320(c):1-10.
32. D'Alonzo M, Dosen S, Cipriani C, Farina D. HyVE: Hybrid vibro-electrotactile stimulation for sensory feedback and substitution in rehabilitation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014;22:290-301.
33. Wolpert DM, Miall RC, Winter JL, Stein JF. Evidence for an error deadzone in compensatory tracking. J Mot Behav. 1992;24:299-308.
34. Hill J. A describing function analysis of tracking performance using two tactile displays. IEEE Trans Man Mach Syst. 1970;11:92-101.
35. Goldstein EB. Sensation and Perception. 9th ed. Belmont, CA. USA: Wadsworth Publishing; 2014.
36. Aström KJ, Wittenmark B. Computer-Controlled Systems: Theory and Design. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. USA: Prentice-Hall; 1984.
37. Van der Kooij H, van Asseldonk E, van der Helm FCT. Comparison of different methods to identify and quantify balance control. J Neurosci Methods. 2005;145:175-203.
38. McRuer DT, Graham D, Krendel ES. Manual control of single-loop systems: Part I. J Franklin Inst. 1967;283:1-29.
39. Rattay F. Electrical Nerve Stimulation. Vienna: Springer Vienna; 1990.
40. Kitchen S. Electrotherapy. Evidence Based Practice. 11 Rev ed. London: Churchill Livingstone (Elsevier Health Sciences); 2001.
41. Koga K, Furue H, Rashid MH, Takaki A, Katafuchi T, Yoshimura M. Selective activation of primary afferent fibers evaluated by sine-wave electrical stimulation. Mol Pain. 2005;1:13.
42. Langille M, Gonzalez-Cueto JA, Sundar S. Analysis of the selective nature of sensory nerve stimulation using different sinusoidal frequencies. Int J Neurosci. 2008;118:1131-44.
43. Hartwig V, Cappelli C, Vanello N, Ricciardi E, Scilingo EP, Giovannetti G, et al. A compatible electrocutaneous display for functional magnetic resonance imaging application. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;1:1021-4.
44. Kingdom FAA, Prins N. Psychophysics: A Practical Introduction. London: Academic Press: An imprint of Elsevier; 2009. p. 304.
45. Geng B, Yoshida K, Petrini L, Jensen W. Evaluation of sensation evoked by electrocutaneous stimulation on forearm in nondisabled subjects. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012;49:297-308.
46. Gerisch H, Staude G, Wolf W, Bauch G. A three-component model of the control error in manual tracking of continuous random signals. Hum Factors. 2013;55:985-1000.
47. McRuer DT, Krendel ES. The human operator as a servo system element. J Franklin Inst. 1959;267:381-403.
48. Hess RA. Control theory for humans: quantitative approaches to modeling performance by R. J. Jagacinski and J. M. Flach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2003, 379 pp. IBSN 0-8058-2292-5. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control. 2004;14:1371-3.
49. Perović M, Stevanović M. Electrical stimulation of the forearm: a method for transmitting sensory signals from the artificial hand to the brain. J Autom Control. 2013;21:13-8.
50. Antfolk C, Cipriani C, Carrozza MC, Balkenius C, Björkman A, Lundborg G, et al. Transfer of tactile input from an artificial hand to the forearm: experiments in amputees and able-bodied volunteers. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013;8(3):249-54.
51. Hebert JS, Olson JL, Morhart MJ, Dawson MR, Marasco PD, Kuiken TA, et al. Novel targeted sensory reinnervation technique to restore functional hand sensation after transhumeral amputation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014;22:765-73.
52. Goller AI. Perceptual abnormalities in amputees: phantom pain, mirror-touch synaesthesia and referred tactile sensations. Doctoral thesis, University of Sussex.
53. Buma DG, Buitenweg JR, Veltink PH. Intermittent stimulation delays adaptation to electrocutaneous sensory feedback. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2007;15:435-41.