» Articles » PMID: 32426344

The Merits of Dynamic Data Acquisition for Realistic Myocontrol

Overview
Date 2020 May 20
PMID 32426344
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Natural myocontrol is the intuitive control of a prosthetic limb via the user's voluntary muscular activations. This type of control is usually implemented by means of pattern recognition, which uses a set of training data to create a model that can decipher these muscular activations. A consequence of this approach is that the reliability of a myocontrol system depends on how representative this training data is for all types of signal variability that may be encountered when the amputee puts the prosthesis into real use. Myoelectric signals are indeed known to vary according to the position and orientation of the limb, among other factors, which is why it has become common practice to take this variability into account by acquiring training data in multiple body postures. To shed further light on this problem, we compare two ways of collecting data: while the subjects hold their limb statically in several positions one at a time, which is the traditional way, or while they dynamically move their limb at a constant pace through those same positions. Since our interest is to investigate any differences when controlling an actual prosthetic device, we defined an evaluation protocol that consisted of a series of complex, bimanual daily-living tasks. Fourteen intact participants performed these tasks while wearing prosthetic hands mounted on splints, which were controlled via either a statically or dynamically built myocontrol model. In both cases all subjects managed to complete all tasks and participants without previous experience in myoelectric control manifested a significant learning effect; moreover, there was no significant difference in the task completion times achieved with either model. When evaluated in a simulated scenario with traditional offline performance evaluation, on the other hand, the dynamically-trained system showed significantly better accuracy. Regardless of the setting, the dynamic data acquisition was faster, less tiresome, and better accepted by the users. We conclude that dynamic data acquisition is advantageous and confirm the limited relevance of offline analyses for online myocontrol performance.

Citing Articles

Unravelling Influence Factors in Pattern Recognition Myoelectric Control Systems: The Impact of Limb Positions and Electrode Shifts.

Wang B, Li J, Hargrove L, Kamavuako E Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(15).

PMID: 39123885 PMC: 11314973. DOI: 10.3390/s24154840.


Simultaneous assessment and training of an upper-limb amputee using incremental machine-learning-based myocontrol: a single-case experimental design.

Nowak M, Bongers R, Van der Sluis C, Albu-Schaffer A, Castellini C J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2023; 20(1):39.

PMID: 37029432 PMC: 10082541. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-023-01171-2.


Surface EMG Statistical and Performance Analysis of Targeted-Muscle-Reinnervated (TMR) Transhumeral Prosthesis Users in Home and Laboratory Settings.

Wang B, Hargrove L, Bao X, Kamavuako E Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(24).

PMID: 36560218 PMC: 9786766. DOI: 10.3390/s22249849.


Internet of Things for beyond-the-laboratory prosthetics research.

Wu H, Dyson M, Nazarpour K Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2022; 380(2228):20210005.

PMID: 35762812 PMC: 9335889. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2021.0005.


Gesture Recognition Using Surface Electromyography and Deep Learning for Prostheses Hand: State-of-the-Art, Challenges, and Future.

Li W, Shi P, Yu H Front Neurosci. 2021; 15:621885.

PMID: 33981195 PMC: 8107289. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.621885.

References
1.
Schweitzer W, Thali M, Egger D . Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018; 15(1):1. PMC: 5751817. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-017-0340-0. View

2.
Fougner A, Scheme E, Chan A, Englehart K, Stavdahl O . Resolving the limb position effect in myoelectric pattern recognition. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2011; 19(6):644-51. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2011.2163529. View

3.
Beckerle P, Castellini C, Lenggenhager B . Robotic interfaces for cognitive psychology and embodiment research: A research roadmap. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2018; 10(2):e1486. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1486. View

4.
Castellini C, Artemiadis P, Wininger M, Ajoudani A, Alimusaj M, Bicchi A . Proceedings of the first workshop on Peripheral Machine Interfaces: going beyond traditional surface electromyography. Front Neurorobot. 2014; 8:22. PMC: 4133701. DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2014.00022. View

5.
Strazzulla I, Nowak M, Controzzi M, Cipriani C, Castellini C . Online Bimanual Manipulation Using Surface Electromyography and Incremental Learning. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2017; 25(3):227-234. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2016.2554884. View