Visuomotor behaviors and performance in a dual-task paradigm with and without vibrotactile feedback when using a myoelectric controlled hand

Assistive Technology

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2018, Pages 274-280

  Raveh, Eitan ^a   Friedman, Jason ^a   Portnoy, Sigal ^a,b  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b HADASSAH HEBREW UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

motor performance; myoelectric prostheses; upper limb amputation; visual attention

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER GAMES; EYE TRACKING; FEEDBACK; OFF ROAD VEHICLES; SENSORY FEEDBACK; VISUAL COMMUNICATION;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING (ADLS); MOTOR PERFORMANCE; MYOELECTRIC PROSTHESIS; PROSTHETIC HANDS; TACTILE FEEDBACK; UPPER LIMB AMPUTATION; VIBRO-TACTILE FEEDBACKS; VISUAL ATTENTION;

MYOELECTRICALLY CONTROLLED PROSTHETICS;

ADULT; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HAND; HUMAN; LIMB PROSTHESIS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE; TOUCH; VIBRATION; VISION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HAND; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TOUCH; VIBRATION; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85021115367     PISSN: 10400435     EISSN: 19493614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10400435.2017.1323809     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Antfolk, C., D’Alonzo, M., Rosén, B., Lundborg, G., Sebelius, F., & Cipriani, C., (2013). Sensory feedback in upper limb prosthetics. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 10(1), 45–54. doi:10.1586/erd.12.68
2. Biddiss, E., Beaton, D., & Chau, T., (2007). Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology, 2, 346–357. doi:10.1080/17483100701714733
3. Biddiss, E. A., & Chau, T. T., (2007). Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 31, 236–257. doi:10.1080/03093640600994581
4. Blank, A., Okamura, A. M., & Kuchenbecker, K. J., (2010). Identifying the role of proprioception in upper-limb prosthesis control: Studies on targeted motion. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 7(3), 1–23. doi:10.1145/1773965
5. Bouwsema, H., Kyberd, P. J., Hill, W., Van Der Sluis, C. K., & Bongers, R. M., (2012). Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 49(9), 1331–1348. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2011.09.0179
6. Bouwsema, H., Van Der Sluis, C. K., & Bongers, R. M., (2014). Changes in performance over time while learning to use a myoelectric prosthesis. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 11(1), 16. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-16
7. Bullock, I. M., Zheng, J. Z., De La Rosa, S., Guertler, C., & Dollar, A. M., (2013). Grasp frequency and usage in daily household and machine shop tasks. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 6(3), 296–308. doi:10.1109/TOH.2013.6
8. Campbell, J. I. D., & Thompson, V. A. T., (2012). MorePower 6.0 for ANOVA with relational confidence intervals and Bayesian analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1255–1265. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0186-0
9. Childress, D. S., (1980). Closed-loop control in prosthetic systems: Historical perspective. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 8(4–6), 293–303. doi:10.1007/BF02363433
10. Flanagan, J. R., Bowman, M. C., & Johansson, R. S., (2006). Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(6), 650–659. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.10.005
11. Fougner, A., Stavdahl, O., Kyberd, P. J., Losier, Y. G., & Parker, P. A., (2012). Control of upper limb prostheses: Terminology and proportional myoelectric control—A review. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 20(5), 663–677. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2196711
12. Gillespie, R. B., Contreras-Vidal, J. L., Shewokis, P. A., O’Malley, M. K., Brown, J. D., Agashe, H., … Davis, A., (2010, August–Septemeber). Toward improved sensorimotor integration and learning using upper-limb prosthetic devices. Annual International Conference of Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (pp. 5077–5080), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
13. Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D., (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), 212–224. doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224
14. Han, S. W., & Marois, R., (2013). The source of dual-task limitations: Serial or parallel processing of multiple response selections? Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 75(7), 1395–1405. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0513-2
15. Hasson, C. J., & Manczurowsky, J., (2015). Effects of kinematic vibrotactile feedback on learning to control a virtual prosthetic arm. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 12(1),. doi:10.1186/s12984-015-0025-5
16. Johansson, R. S., (1998). Sensory input and control of grip. Novartis Foundation Symposium, 218, 45–49.
17. Johnson, R. E., Kording, K. P., Hargrove, L. J., & Sensinger, J. W., (2014). Does EMG control lead to distinct motor adaptation? Frontiers in Neuroscience, 30(8), 302.
18. Maat, B., Smit, G., Plettenburg, D., Breedveld, P., (2017). Passive prosthetic hands and tools: A literature review. Prosthet Orthot Int, Epub ahead of print.
19. Mahns, D. A., Perkins, N. M., Sahai, V., Robinson, L., & Rowe, M. J., (2006). Vibrotactile frequency discrimination in human hairy skin. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95(3), 1442–1445. doi:10.1152/jn.00483.2005
20. McGlone, F., & Reilly, D., (2010). The cutaneous sensory system. Neuroscience Biobehav Reviews, 34(2), 148–159. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.08.004
21. McIsaac, T. L., Lamberg, E. M., & Muratori, L. M., (2015). Building a framework for a dual task taxonomy. Biomed Research International, 2015, 1–10. doi:10.1155/2015/591475
22. Saunders, I., & Vijayakumar, S., (2011). The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 8(1), 60. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-8-60
23. Schofield, J. S., Evans, K. R., Carey, J. P., & Hebert, J. S., (2014). Applications of sensory feedback in motorized upper extremity prosthesis: A review. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 11(5), 499–511. doi:10.1586/17434440.2014.929496
24. Sobuh, M. M., Kenney, L. P., Galpin, A. J., Thies, S. B., McLaughlin, J., Kulkarni, J., & Kyberd, P., (2014). Visuomotor behaviours when using a myoelectric prosthesis. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 11(1), 72. doi:10.1186/1743-0003-11-72
25. Wei, K., & Körding, K., (2010). Uncertainty of feedback and state estimation determines the speed of motor adaptation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 11(4), 11.
26. Witteveen, H. J., De Rond, L., Rietman, J. S., & Veltink, P. H., (2012). Hand-opening feedback for myoelectric forearm prostheses: Performance in virtual grasping tasks influenced by different levels of distraction. Journal Rehabilitation Researcher Developments, 49(10), 1517–1526. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2011.12.0243
27. Witteveen, H. J., Luft, F., Rietman, J. S., & Veltink, P. H., (2014). Stiffness feedback for myoelectric forearm prostheses using vibrotactile stimulation. IEEE Transactions Neural Systems Rehabilitation Engineering, 22(1), 53–61. doi:10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2267394