Psychophysical principles of discrete event-driven vibrotactile feedback for prostheses

Karakuş, İpek; Güçlü, Burak

doi:10.1080/08990220.2020.1769055

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this framework, stimulation paradigms are not aimed at creating biomimetic sensations, but towards stimuli that are easily distinguishable relative to each other to encode discrete events. For example, one pattern might indicate 'force increase', while another indicates 'object contact' [43]. The lack of influence by the stimulation intensity on the discrimination between stimuli in our study is therefore encouraging, as it indicates that the relative difference is stable.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

“…Previous research has shown that discrimination of consecutive stimuli is possible when the isi between the stimuli is at least 100 ms [44]. Others have shown that each of these stimuli can transfer information such as prosthesis movement or object characteristics through modulation of the stimuli [43]. However, it was not clear if one stimulus could alter the perception of the following pulse when an isi over 100 ms is included.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Fast Is Too Fast? Boundaries to the Perception of Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves

Dupan

McNeill

Sarda

et al. 2022

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcutaneous electrical stimulation is a promising technique for providing prosthetic hand users with information about sensory events. However, questions remain over how to design the stimulation paradigms to provide users the best opportunity to discriminate these events. Here, we investigate if the refractory period influences how the amplitude of the applied stimulus is perceived. Twenty participants completed a two-alternative forced choice experiment. We delivered two stimuli spaced between 250 ms to 450 ms apart (inter-stimulus-interval, isi). The participants reported which stimulus they perceived as strongest. Each stimulus consisted of either a single or paired pulse delivered transcutaneously. The inter-pulse interval (ipi) for the paired pulse stimuli varied between 6 and 10 ms. We found paired pulses with an ipi of 6 ms were perceived stronger than a single pulse less often than paired pulses with an ipi of 8 ms (p = 0.001) or 10 ms (p < 0.0001). Additionally, we found when the isi was 250 ms, participants were less likely to identify the paired pulse as strongest, than when the isi was 350 or 450 ms. This study emphasizes the importance of basing stimulation paradigms on the underlying neural physiology. The results indicate there is an upper limit to the commonly accepted notion that higher stimulation frequencies lead to stronger perception. If frequency is to be used to encode sensory events, then the results suggest stimulus paradigms should be designed using frequencies below 125 Hz.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Fast Is Too Fast? Boundaries to the Perception of Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves

Dupan

McNeill

Sarda

et al. 2022

IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That way we could have estimated the uncertainty with which each participant perceived and interpreted the feedback (and thus gained indications for how much weight the participants would attribute to each feedback strategy [ 69 ]). We checked that the stimulus was clearly perceivable, and we believe that all participants could identify semitone frequency steps, but the perceived loudness of the stimulus and the ease with which the frequency steps could be discerned may indeed have varied between participants and between sessions [ 70 ]. For maximum efficacy of the feedback, the stimulus would have needed to be adjusted to each individual, as described recently by Karakuş and Güçlü [ 70 ] for vibrotactile stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We checked that the stimulus was clearly perceivable, and we believe that all participants could identify semitone frequency steps, but the perceived loudness of the stimulus and the ease with which the frequency steps could be discerned may indeed have varied between participants and between sessions [ 70 ]. For maximum efficacy of the feedback, the stimulus would have needed to be adjusted to each individual, as described recently by Karakuş and Güçlü [ 70 ] for vibrotactile stimuli. The procedure described therein consists of absolute detection-threshold measurement, identification of psychometric function, subjective magnitude assessment, and the determination of equal magnitude levels for different frequencies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing silicone digit extensions as a way to suppress natural sensation to evaluate supplementary tactile feedback

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dexterous use of the hands depends critically on sensory feedback, so it is generally agreed that functional supplementary feedback would greatly improve the use of hand prostheses. Much research still focuses on improving non-invasive feedback that could potentially become available to all prosthesis users. However, few studies on supplementary tactile feedback for hand prostheses demonstrated a functional benefit. We suggest that confounding factors impede accurate assessment of feedback, e.g., testing non-amputee participants that inevitably focus intently on learning EMG control, the EMG’s susceptibility to noise and delays, and the limited dexterity of hand prostheses. In an attempt to assess the effect of feedback free from these constraints, we used silicone digit extensions to suppress natural tactile feedback from the fingertips and thus used the tactile feedback-deprived human hand as an approximation of an ideal feed-forward tool. Our non-amputee participants wore the extensions and performed a simple pick-and-lift task with known weight, followed by a more difficult pick-and-lift task with changing weight. They then repeated these tasks with one of three kinds of audio feedback. The tests were repeated over three days. We also conducted a similar experiment on a person with severe sensory neuropathy to test the feedback without the extensions. Furthermore, we used a questionnaire based on the NASA Task Load Index to gauge the subjective experience. Unexpectedly, we did not find any meaningful differences between the feedback groups, neither in the objective nor the subjective measurements. It is possible that the digit extensions did not fully suppress sensation, but since the participant with impaired sensation also did not improve with the supplementary feedback, we conclude that the feedback failed to provide relevant grasping information in our experiments. The study highlights the complex interaction between task, feedback variable, feedback delivery, and control, which seemingly rendered even rich, high-bandwidth acoustic feedback redundant, despite substantial sensory impairment.

show abstract

Stimulus interaction in transcutaneous electrical stimulation

Dupan

Jabban

Metcalfe

et al. 2021

Somatosensory Feedback for Neuroprosthetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychophysical principles of discrete event-driven vibrotactile feedback for prostheses

Cited by 8 publications

References 63 publications

How Fast Is Too Fast? Boundaries to the Perception of Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves

How Fast Is Too Fast? Boundaries to the Perception of Electrical Stimulation of Peripheral Nerves

Testing silicone digit extensions as a way to suppress natural sensation to evaluate supplementary tactile feedback

Stimulus interaction in transcutaneous electrical stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About