An Empirical Evaluation of Force Feedback in Body-Powered Prostheses

Brown, Jeremy D.; Kunz, Timothy S.; Gardner, Duane; Shelley, Mackenzie K.; Davis, Alicia J.; Gillespie, R. Brent

doi:10.1109/tnsre.2016.2554061

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous literature has shown that myoelectric prostheses may benefit from the addition of haptic feedback [7,18,21]. In this study, we show that task performance is equally improved over no haptic feedback, regardless of the specific haptic feedback modality used.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 52%

“…The exoskeleton was capable of de- livering a maximum torque of 3.24 Nm as a flexion moment at the elbow joint. This exoskeleton was originally presented in previous work by members of our research group, Brown et al [7]. An explanation of the joint-torque stimulus is detailed in Section 2.6.4.…”

Section: Experimental Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the maximum value on the scope that participants are able to view is 110%, any aperture above this value appears visually the same to the participant. Therefore, P C i is adjusted according to (7) such that any aperture above 110% is represented the same. Essentially, (6) converts the terminal device's final aperture for each block into an associated stiffness value.…”

Section: Aperturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis

Thomas

Ung

McGarvey

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite the technological advancements in myoelectric prostheses, body-powered prostheses remain a popular choice for amputees, in part due to the natural sensory advantage they provide. Research on haptic feedback in myoelectric prostheses has delivered mixed results. Furthermore, there is limited research comparing various haptic feedback modalities in myoelectric prostheses. In this paper, we present a comparison of the feedback intrinsically present in body-powered prostheses (joint-torque feedback) to a commonly proposed feedback modality for myoelectric prostheses (vibrotactile feedback). In so doing, we seek to understand whether the advantages of kinesthetic feedback present in body-powered prostheses translate to myoelectric prostheses, and whether there are differences between kinesthetic and cutaneous feedback in prosthetic applications. Methods:We developed an experimental testbed that features a cable-driven, voluntary-closing 1-DoF prosthesis, a capstan-driven elbow exoskeleton, and a vibrotactile actuation unit. The system can present grip force to users as either a flexion moment about the elbow or vibration on the wrist. To provide an equal comparison of joint-torque and vibrotactile feedback, a stimulus intensity matching scheme was utilized. Non-amputee participants (n=12) were asked to discriminate objects of varying stiffness with the prosthesis in three conditions: no haptic feedback, vibrotactile feedback, and joint-torque feedback.Results: Results indicate that haptic feedback increased discrimination accuracy over no haptic feedback, but the difference between joint-torque feedback and vibrotactile feedback was not significant. In addition, our results highlight nuanced differences in performance depending on the objects' stiffness, and suggest that participants likely pay less attention to incidental cues with the addition of haptic feedback. Conclusion:Even when haptic feedback is not modality matched to the task, such as in the case of vibrotactile feedback, performance with a myoelectric prosthesis can improve significantly. This implies it is possible to achieve the same benefits with vibrotactile feedback, which is cheaper and easier to implement than other forms of feedback.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 52%

Section: Experimental Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Aperturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis

Thomas

Ung

McGarvey

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the list of known issues relating to current myoelectric arms, remains long. It contains electrode related skin rashes [ 98 , 99 ], sweat interference with electrode functioning [ 84 ], postural interference [ 140 ], high weight and distal center of gravity, insufficient durability [ 47 ], noisy distraction [ 141 ], absent proprioceptive feedback [ 142 ], uncoordinated grips [ 93 ], fragile prosthetic gloves [ 143 ], extreme costs [ 144 ] and unattractive appearance [ 45 , 145 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment

Schweitzer

Thali

Egger

2018

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

115

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundProsthetic arm research predominantly focuses on “bionic” but not body-powered arms. However, any research orientation along user needs requires sufficiently precise workplace specifications and sufficiently hard testing. Forensic medicine is a demanding environment, also physically, also for non-disabled people, on several dimensions (e.g., distances, weights, size, temperature, time).MethodsAs unilateral below elbow amputee user, the first author is in a unique position to provide direct comparison of a “bionic” myoelectric iLimb Revolution (Touch Bionics) and a customized body-powered arm which contains a number of new developments initiated or developed by the user: (1) quick lock steel wrist unit; (2) cable mount modification; (3) cast shape modeled shoulder anchor; (4) suspension with a soft double layer liner (Ohio Willowwood) and tube gauze (Molnlycke) combination. The iLimb is mounted on an epoxy socket; a lanyard fixed liner (Ohio Willowwood) contains magnetic electrodes (Liberating Technologies). An on the job usage of five years was supplemented with dedicated and focused intensive two-week use tests at work for both systems.ResultsThe side-by-side comparison showed that the customized body-powered arm provides reliable, comfortable, effective, powerful as well as subtle service with minimal maintenance; most notably, grip reliability, grip force regulation, grip performance, center of balance, component wear down, sweat/temperature independence and skin state are good whereas the iLimb system exhibited a number of relevant serious constraints.ConclusionsResearch and development of functional prostheses may want to focus on body-powered technology as it already performs on manually demanding and heavy jobs whereas eliminating myoelectric technology’s constraints seems out of reach. Relevant testing could be developed to help expediting this. This is relevant as Swiss disability insurance specifically supports prostheses that enable actual work integration. Myoelectric and cosmetic arm improvement may benefit from a less forgiving focus on perfecting anthropomorphic appearance.

show abstract

“…For individuals with transradial limb loss, body-powered devices are typically controlled by a figure-of-nine harness through movement of the contralateral shoulder [ 1 ]. This type of control allows easy activation and provides a measure of sensory feedback of aperture and grip force [ 8 ]; however, it can also cause shoulder pain or injury and motivate device abandonment [ 1 ]. Although these devices are quite different from their myoelectric counterparts, their rejection rate is quite similar (26%) [ 4 ], and while myoelectric and body-powered prostheses each exhibit specific strengths and weaknesses, neither provide an overall advantage over the other [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The SoftHand Pro: Functional evaluation of a novel, flexible, and robust myoelectric prosthesis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Roughly one quarter of active upper limb prosthetic technology is rejected by the user, and user surveys have identified key areas requiring improvement: function, comfort, cost, durability, and appearance. Here we present the first systematic, clinical assessment of a novel prosthetic hand, the SoftHand Pro (SHP), in participants with transradial amputation and age-matched, limb-intact participants. The SHP is a robust and functional prosthetic hand that minimizes cost and weight using an underactuated design with a single motor. Participants with limb loss were evaluated on functional clinical measures before and after a 6–8 hour training period with the SHP as well as with their own prosthesis; limb-intact participants were tested only before and after SHP training. Participants with limb loss also evaluated their own prosthesis and the SHP (following training) using subjective questionnaires. Both objective and subjective results were positive and illuminated the strengths and weaknesses of the SHP. In particular, results pre-training show the SHP is easy to use, and significant improvement in the Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputees in both groups following a 6–8 hour training highlights the ease of learning the unique features of the SHP (median improvement: 4.71 and 3.26 and p = 0.009 and 0.036 for limb loss and limb-intact groups, respectively). Further, we found no difference in performance compared to participant’s own commercial devices in several clinical measures and found performance surpassing these devices on two functional tasks, buttoning a shirt and using a cell phone, suggesting a functional prosthetic design. Finally, improvements are needed in the SHP design and/or training in light of poor results in small object manipulation. Taken together, these results show the promise of the SHP, a flexible and adaptive prosthetic hand, and pave a path forward to ensuring higher functionality in future.

show abstract

An Empirical Evaluation of Force Feedback in Body-Powered Prostheses

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis

Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis

Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment

The SoftHand Pro: Functional evaluation of a novel, flexible, and robust myoelectric prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About