Temporal and Spatial Characteristics of Bone Conduction As Non-invasive Haptic Sensory Feedback for Upper-limb Prosthesis

Overview

Journal Front Neurosci

Date 2023 Apr 14

PMID 37056306

Authors

Raphael M Mayer

Alireza Mohammadi

Ying Tan

Gursel Alici

Peter Choong

Denny Oetomo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Bone conduction is a promising haptic feedback modality for upper-limb prosthesis users, however, its potential and characteristics as a non-invasive feedback modality have not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to establish the temporal and spatial characteristics of non-invasive bone conduction as a sensory feedback interface for upper-limb prostheses. Psychometric human-subject experiments were conducted on three bony landmarks of the elbow, with a vibrotactile transducer affixed to each to provide the stimulus. The study characterized the temporal domain by testing perception threshold and resolution in amplitude and frequency. The spatial domain was evaluated by assessing the ability of subjects to detect the number of simultaneous active stimulation sites. The experiment was conducted with ten able-bodied subjects and compared to two subjects with trans-radial amputation. The psychometric evaluation of the proposed non-invasive bone conduction feedback showed results comparable to invasive methods. The experimental results demonstrated similar amplitude and frequency resolution of the interface for all three stimulation sites for both able-bodied subjects and subjects with trans-radial amputation, highlighting its potential as a non-invasive feedback modality for upper-limb prostheses.

References

Shehata A, Rehani M, Jassat Z, Hebert J . Mechanotactile Sensory Feedback Improves Embodiment of a Prosthetic Hand During Active Use. Front Neurosci. 2020; 14:263. PMC: 7113400. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00263. View

Johansson R, Westling G . Signals in tactile afferents from the fingers eliciting adaptive motor responses during precision grip. Exp Brain Res. 1987; 66(1):141-54. DOI: 10.1007/BF00236210. View

Cordella F, Ciancio A, Sacchetti R, Davalli A, Cutti A, Guglielmelli E . Literature Review on Needs of Upper Limb Prosthesis Users. Front Neurosci. 2016; 10:209. PMC: 4864250. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00209. View

Dosen S, Ninu A, Yakimovich T, Dietl H, Farina D . A Novel Method to Generate Amplitude-Frequency Modulated Vibrotactile Stimulation. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2015; 9(1):3-12. DOI: 10.1109/TOH.2015.2497229. View

Farina D, Vujaklija I, Branemark R, Bull A, Dietl H, Graimann B . Toward higher-performance bionic limbs for wider clinical use. Nat Biomed Eng. 2021; 7(4):473-485. DOI: 10.1038/s41551-021-00732-x. View

Augurelle A, Smith A, Lejeune T, Thonnard J . Importance of cutaneous feedback in maintaining a secure grip during manipulation of hand-held objects. J Neurophysiol. 2003; 89(2):665-71. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00249.2002. View

Sanders J, Allyn K, Harrison D, Myers T, Ciol M, Tsai E . Preliminary investigation of residual-limb fluid volume changes within one day. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013; 49(10):1467-78. PMC: 4423818. DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2011.12.0236. View

Mayer R, Mohammadi A, Alici G, Choong P, Oetomo D . Bone Conduction as Sensory Feedback Interface: A Preliminary Study. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020; 2019:5322-5325. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2019.8856424. View

Kaernbach C . A single-interval adjustment-matrix (SIAM) procedure for unbiased adaptive testing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990; 88(6):2645-55. DOI: 10.1121/1.399985. View

10.

Clemente F, Hakansson B, Cipriani C, Wessberg J, Kulbacka-Ortiz K, Branemark R . Touch and Hearing Mediate Osseoperception. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:45363. PMC: 5368565. DOI: 10.1038/srep45363. View

11.

Clemente F, DAlonzo M, Controzzi M, Edin B, Cipriani C . Non-Invasive, Temporally Discrete Feedback of Object Contact and Release Improves Grasp Control of Closed-Loop Myoelectric Transradial Prostheses. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015; 24(12):1314-1322. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2500586. View

12.

Saunders I, Vijayakumar S . The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2011; 8:60. PMC: 3227590. DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-8-60. View

13.

Mayer R, Garcia-Rosas R, Mohammadi A, Tan Y, Alici G, Choong P . Tactile Feedback in Closed-Loop Control of Myoelectric Hand Grasping: Conveying Information of Multiple Sensors Simultaneously via a Single Feedback Channel. Front Neurosci. 2020; 14:348. PMC: 7197324. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00348. View

14.

Sensinger J, Dosen S . A Review of Sensory Feedback in Upper-Limb Prostheses From the Perspective of Human Motor Control. Front Neurosci. 2020; 14:345. PMC: 7324654. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00345. View

15.

Svensson P, Wijk U, Bjorkman A, Antfolk C . A review of invasive and non-invasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017; 14(6):439-447. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2017.1332989. View

16.

Dietrich C, Walter-Walsh K, Preissler S, Hofmann G, Witte O, Miltner W . Sensory feedback prosthesis reduces phantom limb pain: proof of a principle. Neurosci Lett. 2011; 507(2):97-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2011.10.068. View

17.

Antfolk C, DAlonzo M, Rosen B, Lundborg G, Sebelius F, Cipriani C . Sensory feedback in upper limb prosthetics. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013; 10(1):45-54. DOI: 10.1586/erd.12.68. View

18.

Farina D, Amsuss S . Reflections on the present and future of upper limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016; 13(4):321-4. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2016.1159511. View

19.

Schofield J, Evans K, Carey J, Hebert J . Applications of sensory feedback in motorized upper extremity prosthesis: a review. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014; 11(5):499-511. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2014.929496. View

20.

Westling G, Johansson R . Factors influencing the force control during precision grip. Exp Brain Res. 1984; 53(2):277-84. DOI: 10.1007/BF00238156. View