Evaluation of sensation evoked by electrocutaneous stimulation on forearm in nondisabled subjects

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 297-308

  Geng, Bo ^a   Yoshida, Ken ^a,b   Petrini, Laura ^a   Jensen, Winnie ^a  

^a AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis   (United States)

Author keywords

Artificial sensation; Electrocutaneous stimulation; Prostheses; Psychophysical test; Sen sory modulation; Sensation measure; Sensory augmentation; Sensory communication; Sensory feedback; Sensory substitution

Indexed keywords

PROSTHETICS; SENSORY FEEDBACK;

ARTIFICIAL SENSATION; ELECTROCUTANEOUS; PSYCHO-PHYSICAL TESTS; SENSATION MEASURE; SENSORY AUGMENTATION; SENSORY SUBSTITUTION;

QUALITY CONTROL;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; FOREARM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PULSE RATE; RADIUS; SENSORY STIMULATION; SKIN SENSATION; SKIN STIMULATION; TOUCH; ULNA;

ADULT; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; FOREARM; HUMANS; MALE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; QUESTIONNAIRES; SENSATION; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; SKIN; TRANSCUTANEOUS ELECTRIC NERVE STIMULATION;

EID: 84930485632     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: 19381352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2010.09.0187     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Herberts P, Körner L. Ideas on sensory feedback in hand prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1979;3(3):157-62.PMID: 523298.
2. Pfeiffer EA. Electrical stimulation of sensory nerves with skin electrodes for research, diagnosis, communication and behavioral conditioning: A survey. Med Biol Eng. 1968; 6(6):637-51. PMID: 4891827.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02474726.
3. Kaczmarek KA, Webster JG, Bach-y-Rita P, Tompkins WJ. Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitu-tion systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991;38(1):1-16.PMID: 2026426.http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/10.68204.
4. Van Doren CL, Riso RR, Milchus K. Sensory feedback for enhancing upper extremity neuromuscular prostheses. Neu-rorehabil Neural Repair. 1991;5(1-2):63-74.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136140969100500107.
5. Riso RR. Strategies for providing upper extremity ampu-tees with tactile and hand position feedback-Moving closer to the bionic arm. Technol Health Care. 1999;7(6): 401-9. PMID: 10665673.
6. Szeto AY, Saunders FA. Electrocutaneous stimulation for sensory communication in rehabilitation engineering. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1982;29(4):300-8. PMID: 7068167.http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBME.1982.324948.
7. Beeker TW, During J, Den Hertog A. Artificial touch in a hand-prosthesis. Med Biol Eng. 1967;5(1):47-49.PMID: 6037625.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02478841.
8. . Schmidl H. The importance of information feedback in prostheses for the upper limbs. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1977; 1(1):21-24. PMID: 615983.
9. . Shannon GF. A myoelectrically-controlled prosthesis with sensory feedback. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1979;17(1):73-80.PMID: 312386.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02440956.
10. . Prior RE, Lyman J, Case PA, Scott CM. Supplemental sen-sory feedback for the VA/NU myoelectric hand: Back-ground and preliminary designs. Bull Prosthet Res. 1976; 10(26):170-91. PMID: 1030327.
11. Scott RN, Brittain RH, Caldwell RR, Cameron AB, Dun-field VA. Sensory-feedback system compatible with myo-electric control. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1980;18(1):65-69.PMID: 7382591.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02442481.
12. Flor H, Denke C, Schaefer M, Grüsser S. Effect of sensory discrimination training on cortical reorganisation and phan-tom limb pain. Lancet. 2001;357(9270):1763-64.PMID: 11403816.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04890-X.
13. Moseley GL, Zalucki NM, Wiech K. Tactile discrimina-tion, but not tactile stimulation alone, reduces chronic limb pain. Pain. 2008;137(3):600-8. PMID: 18054437.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2007.10.021.
14. Szeto AY, Lyman J, Prior RE. Electrocutaneous pulse rate and pulse width psychometric functions for sensory com-munications. Hum Factors. 1979;21(2):241-49.PMID: 489023.
15. Szeto AY. Relationship between pulse rate and pulse width for a constant-intensity level of electrocutaneous stimula-tion. Ann Biomed Eng. 1985;13(5):373-83.PMID: 4073624.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02407767.
16. Van Doren CL. Contours of equal perceived amplitude and equal perceived frequency for electrocutaneous stimuli. Percept Psychophys. 1997;59(4):613-22. PMID: 9158335.http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03211869.
17. 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(1):64-73.PMID: 12565190.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-3924(02)00541-9.
18. Anani AB, Ikeda K, Körner LM. Human ability to discrim-inate various parameters in afferent electrical nerve stimu-lation with particular reference to prostheses sensory feedback. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1977;15(4):363-73.PMID: 197328.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02457988.
19. Schriesheim CA, Kopelman RE, Solomon E. The effect of grouped versus randomized questionnaire format on scale reliability and validity: A three-study investigation. Educ Psychol Meas. 1989;49(3):487-508.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316448904900301.
20. Burgess PR, Petit D, Warren RM. Cutaneous mechanore-ceptors and nociceptors. In: Iggo A, editor. Handbook of sensory physiology, Vol II: Somatosensory system. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag; 1973. p. 28-78.
21. Hensel H. Cutaneous thermoreceptors. In: Iggo A, editor. Handbook of sensory physiology, Vol II: Somatosensory system. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag; 1973. p. 79-110.
22. Gescheider GA, editor. Psychophysics: The fundamentals. 3rd ed. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1997.
23. Cohen PR. Empirical methods for artificial intelligence. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1995.
24. Gardner EP, Martin JH, Jessell TM. The bodily senses. In: Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM, editors. Principles of neural science. 4th ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 2000. p. 432.
25. Vallbo AB, Olausson H, Wessberg J, Kakuda N. Receptive field characteristics of tactile units with myelinated affer-ents in hairy skin of human subjects. J Physiol. 1995; 483(Pt 3):783-95. PMID: 7776258.
26. Wessberg J, Olausson H, Fernström KW, Vallbo AB. Receptive field properties of unmyelinated tactile afferents in the human skin. J Neurophysiol. 2003;89(3):1567-75.PMID: 12626628.http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00256.2002.
27. Meier JH, Rutten WL, Zoutman AE, Boom HB, Bergveld P. Simulation of multipolar fiber selective neural stimula-tion using intrafascicular electrodes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1992;39(2):122-34. PMID: 1612615.http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/10.121643.
28. Nannini N, Horch K. Muscle recruitment with intrafascicular electrodes. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991;38(8):769-76.PMID: 1937510.http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/10.83589.
29. Geng B, Yoshida K, Jensen W. Impacts of selected stimula-tion patterns on the perception threshold in electrocutane-ous stimulation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011;8:9.PMID: 21306616.http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-8-9.
30. Loeb GE, Ghez C. The motor unit and muscle action. In: Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM, editors. Principles of neural science. 4th ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 2000. p. 674-86.
31. Atkins DJ, Heard DC, Donovan WH. Epidemiologic over-view of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot. 1996;8(1):2-11.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00008526-199600810-00003.
32. Dhillon GS, Krüger TB, Sandhu JS, Horch KW. Effects of short-term training on sensory and motor function in sev-ered nerves of long-term human amputees. J Neurophysiol. 2005;93(5):2625-33. PMID: 15846000.http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/jn.00937.2004