Vibrotactile grasping force and hand aperture feedback for myoelectric forearm prosthesis users

Prosthetics and Orthotics International

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 204-212

  Witteveen, Heidi J B ^a   Rietman, Hans S ^a,b   Veltink, Peter H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b ROESSINGH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

grasping force feedback; hand aperture feedback; Upper limb prosthetics; vibrotactile stimulation; virtual grasping tasks

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOREARM PROSTHESIS; GRIP STRENGTH; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; MYOELECTRIC CONTROL; PROSTHESIS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TACTILE STIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VIBROTACTILE MASKING; VISUAL FEEDBACK; ADULT; AMPUTEE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; FOREARM; HAND STRENGTH; HUMAN; LIMB PROSTHESIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; POWER SUPPLY; PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RADIUS; REHABILITATION; SENSORY FEEDBACK; SURGERY; TOUCH; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AMPUTEES; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLIES; FEEDBACK, SENSORY; FEMALE; FOREARM; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RADIUS; TOUCH; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84955498547     PISSN: 03093646     EISSN: 17461553     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0309364614522260     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Biddiss E, Chau T,. Upper-limb prosthetics-critical factors in device abandonment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2007; 86: 977-987.
2. Atkins DJ, Heard DCY, Donovan WH,. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. J Prosthet Orthot 1996; 8: 2-11.
3. Peerdeman B, Boere D, Witteveen HJB, et al. Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev 2011; 48: 719-738.
4. Antfolk C, D'Alonzo M, Rosen B, et al. Sensory feedback in upper limb prosthetics. Expert Rev Med Devices 2013; 10: 45-54.
5. Kaczmarek KA, Webster JG, Bach-y-Rita P, et al. Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitution systems. IEEE T Bio-Med Eng 1991; 38: 1-16.
6. Patterson PE, Katz JA,. Design and evaluation of a sensory feedback system that provides grasping pressure in a myoelectric hand. J Rehabil Res Dev 1992; 29: 1-8.
7. Jones LA, Safter NB,. Tactile displays: guidance for their design and application. Hum Factors 2008; 50: 90-111.
8. Stepp CE, Matsuoka Y,. Relative to direct haptic feedback, remote vibrotactile feedback improves but slows object manipulation. In: 2010 annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 31 August-4 September 2010, pp. 2089-2092. New York: IEEE.
9. Cipriani C, Zaccone F, Micera S, et al. On the shared control of an EMG-controlled prosthetic hand: analysis of user-prosthesis interaction. IEEE Trans Robot 2008; 24: 170-184.
10. Chatterjee A, Chaubey P, Martin J, et al. Testing a prosthetic haptic feedback simulator with an interactive force matching task. J Prosthet Orthot 2008; 20: 27-34.
11. Stepp CE, Matsuoka Y,. Vibrotactile sensory substitution for object manipulation: amplitude versus pulse train frequency modulation. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2012; 20: 31-37.
12. Pons JL, Ceres R, Rocon E, et al. Objectives and technological approach to the development of the multifunctional MANUS upper limb prosthesis. Robotica 2005; 23: 301-310.
13. 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: 57-61.
14. Saunders I, Vijayakumar S,. The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2011; 8: 60.
15. Witteveen HJB, Rietman JS, Veltink PH,. Grasping force and slip feedback through vibrotactile stimulation to be used in myoelectric forearm prostheses. In: 2012 annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), San Diego, CA, 28 August-1 September 2012, pp. 2969-2972. New York: IEEE.
16. Prior RE, Lyman J, Case PA, et al. Supplemental sensory feedback for the VA/NU myoelectric hand. Background and preliminary designs. Bull Prosthet Res 1976; 10: 170-191.
17. Dhillon GS, Horch KW,. Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2005; 13: 468-472.
18. Cheng A, Nichols KA, Weeks HM, et al. Conveying the configuration of a virtual human hand using vibrotactile feedback. In: Haptics symposium (HAPTICS), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 4-7 March 2012, pp. 155-162. New York: IEEE.
19. Witteveen HJB, Droog EA, Rietman JS, et al. Vibro- and electrotactile user feedback on hand opening for myoelectric forearm prostheses. IEEE T Bio-Med Eng 2012; 59: 2219-2226.
20. Bark K, Wheeler JW, Premakumar S, et al. Comparison of skin stretch and vibrotactile stimulation for feedback of proprioceptive information. In: Symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, HAPTICS 2008, Reno, NE, 13-14 March 2008.
21. Wheeler J, Bark K, Savall J, et al. Investigation of rotational skin stretch for proprioceptive feedback with application to myoelectric systems. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2010; 18: 58-66.
22. Hunter JP, Katz J, Davis KD,. Dissociation of phantom limb phenomena from stump tactile spatial acuity and sensory thresholds. Brain 2005; 128: 308-320.
23. Haber WB,. Reactions to loss of limb: physiological and psychological aspects. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1958; 74: 14-24.
24. Teuber H, Krieger HP, Bender MB,. Reorganization of sensory function in amputation stumps-2-point discrimination. Fed Proc 1949; 8: 156.
25. Moore CEG, Partner A, Sedgwick EM,. Cortical focusing is an alternative explanation for improved sensory acuity on an amputation stump. Neurosci Lett 1999; 270: 185-187.
26. O'Boyle DJ, Moore CEG, Poliakoff E, et al. Human locognosic acuity on the arm varies with explicit and implicit manipulations of attention: implications for interpreting elevated tactile acuity on an amputation stump. Neurosci Lett 2001; 305: 37-40.
27. Braune S, Schady W,. Changes in sensation after nerve injury or amputation-the role of central factors. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1993; 56: 393-399.
28. Sensinger JW, Schultz AE, Kuiken TA,. Examination of force discrimination in human upper limb amputees with reinnervated limb sensation following peripheral nerve transfer. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 2009; 17: 438-444.
29. Schultz AE, Marasco PD, Kuiken TA,. Vibrotactile detection thresholds for chest skin of amputees following targeted reinnervation surgery. Brain Res 2009; 1251: 121-129.
30. Hunter JP, Katz J, Davis KD,. Stability of phantom limb phenomena after upper limb amputation: a longitudinal study. Neuroscience 2008; 156: 939-949.
31. Green BG,. The perception of distance and location for dual tactile pressures. Percept Psychophys 1982; 31: 315-323.
32. Cody FWJ, Garside RAD, Lloyd D, et al. Tactile spatial acuity varies with site and axis in the human upper limb. Neurosci Lett 2008; 433: 103-108.
33. Cholewiak RW, Collins AA,. Vibrotactile localization on the arm: effects of place, space, and age. Percept Psychophys 2003; 65: 1058-1077.
34. Stevens JC, Choo KK,. Spatial acuity of the body surface over the life span. Somatosens Mot Res 1996; 13: 153-166.
35. Der G, Deary IJ,. Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey. Psychol Aging 2006; 21: 62-73.