Non-Colocated Kinesthetic Display Limits Compliance Discrimination in the Absence of Terminal Force Cues

Brown, Jeremy D.; Shelley, Mackenzie K.; Gardner, Duane; Gansallo, Emmanuel A.; Gillespie, R. Brent

doi:10.1109/toh.2016.2554120

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Brown et al found that there was no difference between joint-torque and vibrotactile feedback in a grasp and lift task using a myoelectric prosthesis [16]. Similarly, Brown et al found that there was no difference in kinesthetic feedback delivered to a different part of the body than the part used for exploration (non-colocated) and vibrotactile feedback in a single-DoF spring stiffness discrimination task [29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Thomas

Ung

McGarvey

et al. 2019

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Thomas

Ung

McGarvey

et al. 2019

J NeuroEngineering Rehabil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Task Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Moreover, haptic feedback has been shown to accelerate the learning of a task in many fields such as surgery [12], rehabilitation [13], and sports [14], [15]. Rendering flight information using haptic feedback on the user's torso could provide a collocated feedback that is more natural and easier to process [16] and help the user to learn at as faster rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Haptic Feedback Perception and Learning With Cable-Driven Guidance in Exosuit Teleoperation of a Simulated Drone

Rognon

Ramachandran

et al. 2019

IEEE Trans. Haptics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robotics teleoperation enables human operators to control the movements of distally located robots. The development of new wearable interfaces as alternatives to hand-held controllers has created new modalities of control, which are more intuitive to use. Nevertheless, such interfaces also require a period of adjustment before operators can carry out their tasks proficiently. In several fields of human-machine interaction, haptic guidance has proven to be an effective training tool for enhancing user performance. This work presents the results of psychophysical and motor learning studies that were carried out with human participant to assess the effect of cable-driven haptic guidance for a task involving aerial robotic teleoperation. The guidance system was integrated into an exosuit, called the Flyjacket, that was developed to control drones with torso movements. Results for the Just Noticeable Difference (JND) and from the Stevens Power Law suggest that the perception of force on the users' torso scales linearly with the amplitude of the force exerted through the cables and the perceived force is close to the magnitude of the stimulus. Motor learning studies reveal that this form of haptic guidance improves user performance in training, but this improvement is not retained when participants are evaluated without guidance.

show abstract

Non-Colocated Kinesthetic Display Limits Compliance Discrimination in the Absence of Terminal Force Cues

Cited by 11 publications

References 30 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

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

Haptic Feedback Perception and Learning With Cable-Driven Guidance in Exosuit Teleoperation of a Simulated Drone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About