Objective: The implementation of somatosensory feedback in upper limb myoelectric prostheses is an important step towards the restoration of lost sensory-motor functions. EMG feedback is a recently proposed method for closing the control loop wherein the myoelectric signal that drives the prosthesis is also used to generate the feedback provided to the user. Therefore, the characteristics of the myoelectric signal (variability and sensitivity) are likely to significantly affect the ability of the subject to utilize this feedback for online control of the prosthesis. Approach: In the present study, we investigated how the cutoff frequency of the low-pass filter (0.5, 1 and 1.5 Hz) and normalization value (20, 40 and 60% of the maximum voluntary contraction), that are used for the generation of the myoelectric signal, affect the quality of closed-loop control with EMG feedback. Lower cutoff and normalization decrease the effect of the intrinsic variability of the EMG but also increase the time lag between the contraction and the feedback (cutoff) as well as the sensitivity of the myoelectric signal (normalization). Ten participants were asked to generate three grasp force levels with a myoelectric prosthetic hand, while receiving 5-level vibrotactile EMG feedback, over nine experimental runs (all parameter combinations). Main Results: The outcome measure was the success rate in achieving the appropriate level of myoelectric signal (primary outcome) and grasping force (secondary outcome). Overall, the experiments demonstrated that EMG feedback provided robust control across conditions. Nevertheless, the performance was significantly better for the lowest cutoff (0.5 Hz) and higher normalization (40 and 60%). The highest success rate for the EMG was 71.9%, achieved in the condition (40% MVC, 0.5 Hz), which was 24.1% higher than that in the condition (20% MVC, 1.5 Hz), which displayed the lowest performance. The success rate for the force followed a similar trend. Significance: This is the first study that systematically explored the parameter space for the calibration of EMG feedback, which is a critical step for the future of the clinical application of this approach.
Closing the prosthesis control loop by providing artificial somatosensory feedback can improve utility and user experience. Additionally, closed-loop control should be more robust with respect to disturbance, but this might depend on the type of feedback provided. Thus, the present study investigates and compares the performance of EMG and force feedback in the presence of control disturbances. Twenty able-bodied subjects and one transradial amputee performed delicate and power grasps with a prosthesis in a functional task, while the control signal gain was temporarily increased (high-gain disturbance) or decreased (low-gain disturbance) without their knowledge. Three outcome measures were considered: the percentage of trials successful in the first attempt (reaction to disturbance), the average number of attempts in trials where the wrong force was initially applied (adaptation to disturbance), and the average completion time of the last attempt in every trial. EMG feedback was shown to offer significantly better performance compared to force feedback during power grasping in terms of reaction to disturbance and completion time. During power grasping with high-gain disturbance, the median first-attempt success rate was significantly higher with EMG feedback (73.3%) compared to that achieved with force feedback (60%). Moreover, the median completion time for power grasps with low-gain disturbance was significantly longer with force feedback than with EMG feedback (3.64 against 2.48 s, an increase of 32%). Contrary to our expectations, there was no significant difference between feedback types with regards to adaptation to disturbances and the two feedback types performed similarly in delicate grasps. The results indicated that EMG feedback displayed better performance than force feedback in the presence of control disturbances, further demonstrating the potential of this approach to provide a reliable prosthesis-user interaction.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.