The tests demonstrated that the system was easy to setup and apply. The design and resolution of the multipad electrode was evaluated. Importantly, the novel dynamic patterns, which were successfully tested, can be superimposed to transmit multiple feedback variables intuitively and simultaneously. This is especially relevant for closing the loop in modern multifunction prostheses. Therefore, the proposed system is convenient for practical applications and can be used to implement sensory perception training and/or closed-loop control of myoelectric prostheses, providing grasping force and proprioceptive feedback.

Human motor control relies on a combination of feedback and feedforward strategies. The aim of this study was to longitudinally investigate artificial somatosensory feedback and feedforward control in the context of grasping with myoelectric prosthesis. Nine amputee subjects performed routine grasping trials, with the aim to produce four levels of force during four blocks of 60 trials across five days. The electrotactile force feedback was provided in the second and third block using multipad electrode and spatial coding. The first baseline and last validation block (open-loop control) evaluated the effects of long- (across sessions) and short-term (within session) learning, respectively. The outcome measures were the absolute error between the generated and target force, and the number of force saturations. The results demonstrated that the electrotactile feedback improved the performance both within and across sessions. In the validation block, the performance did not significantly decrease and the quality of open-loop control (baseline) improved across days, converging to the performance characterizing closed-loop control. This paper provides important insights into the feedback and feedforward processes in prosthesis control, contributing to the better understanding of the role and design of feedback in prosthetic systems.

The ArmAssist is a simple low-cost robotic system for upper limb motor training that combines known benefits of repetitive task-oriented training, greater intensity of practice, and less dependence on therapist assistance. The aim of this preliminary study was to compare the efficacy of ArmAssist (AA) robotic training against matched conventional arm training in subacute stroke subjects with moderate-to-severe upper limb impairment. Twenty-six subjects were enrolled within 3 months of stroke and randomly assigned to the AA group or Control group (n = 13 each). Both groups were trained 5 days per week for 3 weeks. The primary outcome measure was Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) motor score, and the secondary outcomes were Wolf Motor Function Test-Functional Ability Scale (WMFT-FAS) and Barthel index (BI). The AA group, in comparison to the Control group, showed significantly greater increases in FMA-UE score (18.0 ± 9.4 versus 7.5 ± 5.5, p = 0.002) and WMFT-FAS score (14.1 ± 7.9 versus 6.7 ± 7.8, p = 0.025) after 3 weeks of treatment, whereas the increase in BI was not significant (21.2 ± 24.8 versus 13.1 ± 10.7, p = 0.292). There were no adverse events. We conclude that arm training using the AA robotic device is safe and able to reduce motor deficits more effectively than matched conventional arm training in subacute phase of stroke. The study has been registered at the ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02729649.

Aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of electrotactile feedback in closed loop training of force control during the routine grasping task. The feedback was provided using an array electrode and a simple six-level spatial coding, and the experiment was conducted in three amputee subjects. The psychometric tests confirmed that the subjects could perceive and interpret the electrotactile feedback with a high success rate. The subjects performed the routine grasping task comprising 4 blocks of 60 grasping trials. In each trial, the subjects employed feedforward control to close the hand and produce the desired grasping force (four levels). First (baseline) and the last (validation) session were performed in open loop, while the second and the third session (training) included electrotactile feedback. The obtained results confirmed that using the feedback improved the accuracy and precision of the force control. In addition, the subjects performed significantly better in the validation vs. baseline session, therefore suggesting that electrotactile feedback can be used for learning and training of myoelectric control.

Background Despite important advancements in control and mechatronics of myoelectric prostheses, the communication between the user and his/her bionic limb is still unidirectional, as these systems do not provide somatosensory feedback. Electrotactile stimulation is an attractive technology to close the control loop since it allows flexible modulation of multiple parameters and compact interface design via multi-pad electrodes. However, the stimulation interferes with the recording of myoelectric signals and this can be detrimental to control. Methods We present a novel compact solution for simultaneous recording and stimulation through dynamic blanking of stimulation artefacts. To test the system, a feedback coding scheme communicating wrist rotation and hand aperture was developed specifically to stress the myoelectric control while still providing meaningful information to the subjects. Ten subjects participated in an experiment, where the quality of closed-loop myoelectric control was assessed by controlling a cursor in a two degrees of freedom target-reaching task. The benchmark performance with visual feedback was compared to that achieved by combining visual feedback and electrotactile stimulation as well as by using electrotactile feedback only. Results There was no significant difference in performance between visual and combined feedback condition with regards to successfully reached targets, time to reach a target, path efficiency and the number of overshoots. Therefore, the quality of myoelectric control was preserved in spite of the stimulation. As expected, the tactile condition was significantly poorer in completion rate (100/4% and 78/25% for combined and tactile condition, respectively) and time to reach a target (9/2 s and 13/4 s for combined and tactile condition, respectively). However, the performance in the tactile condition was still good, with no significant difference in path efficiency (38/8%) and the number of overshoots (0.5/0.4 overshoots), indicating that the stimulation was meaningful for the subjects and useful for closed-loop control. Conclusions Overall, the results demonstrated that the developed system can provide robust closed-loop control using electrotactile stimulation. The system supports different encoding schemes and allows placing the recording and stimulation electrodes next to each other. This is an important step towards an integrated solution where the developed unit will be embedded into a prosthetic socket.