Human Arm Endpoint-impedance in Rhythmic Human-robot Interaction Exhibits Cyclic Variations

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2023 Dec 14

PMID 38096319

Authors

Vincent Fortineau

Isabelle A Siegler

Maria Makarov

Pedro Rodriguez-Ayerbe

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Estimating the human endpoint-impedance interacting with a physical environment provides insights into goal-directed human movements during physical interactions. This work examined the endpoint-impedance of the upper limb during a hybrid ball-bouncing task with simulated haptic feedback while participants manipulated an admittance-controlled robot. Two experiments implemented a force-perturbation method to estimate the endpoint parameters of 31 participants. Experimental conditions of the ball-bouncing task were simulated in a digital environment. One experiment studied the influence of the target height, while the other explored the impedance at three cyclic phases of the rhythmic movement induced by the task. The participants' performances were analyzed and clustered to establish a potential influence of endpoint impedance on performance in the ball-bouncing task. Results showed that endpoint-impedance parameters ranged from 45 to 445 N/m, 2.2 to 17.5 Ns/m, and 227 to 893 g for the stiffness, damping, and mass, respectively. Results did not support such a critical role of endpoint impedance in performance. Nevertheless, the three endpoint-impedance parameters described significant variations throughout the arm cycle. The stiffness is linked to a quasi-linear increase, with a maximum value reached before the ball impacts. The observed damping and mass cyclic variations seemed to be caused by geometric and kinematic variations. Although this study reveals rapid and within-cycles variations of endpoint-impedance parameters, no direct relationship between endpoint-impedance values and performance levels in ball-bouncing could be found.

References

Morice A, Siegler I, Bardy B, Warren W . Learning new perception-action solutions in virtual ball bouncing. Exp Brain Res. 2007; 181(2):249-65. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-0924-1. View

Kistemaker D, Rozendaal L . In vivo dynamics of the musculoskeletal system cannot be adequately described using a stiffness-damping-inertia model. PLoS One. 2011; 6(5):e19568. PMC: 3103502. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019568. View

Milner T, Franklin D . Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans. J Physiol. 2005; 567(Pt 2):651-64. PMC: 1474192. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2005.090449. View

Hogan N, Sternad D . On rhythmic and discrete movements: reflections, definitions and implications for motor control. Exp Brain Res. 2007; 181(1):13-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-0899-y. View

Bennett D, Hollerbach J, Xu Y, Hunter I . Time-varying stiffness of human elbow joint during cyclic voluntary movement. Exp Brain Res. 1992; 88(2):433-42. DOI: 10.1007/BF02259118. View

Degallier S, Ijspeert A . Modeling discrete and rhythmic movements through motor primitives: a review. Biol Cybern. 2010; 103(4):319-38. DOI: 10.1007/s00422-010-0403-9. View

Erden M, Billard A . End-point impedance measurements across dominant and nondominant hands and robotic assistance with directional damping. IEEE Trans Cybern. 2014; 45(6):1146-57. DOI: 10.1109/TCYB.2014.2346021. View

Borner H, Endo S, Hirche S . Estimation of Involuntary Components of Human Arm Impedance in Multi-Joint Movements via Feedback Jerk Isolation. Front Neurosci. 2020; 14:459. PMC: 7261941. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00459. View

Guarin D, Kearney R . Unbiased Estimation of Human Joint Intrinsic Mechanical Properties During Movement. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2018; 26(10):1975-1984. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2018.2870330. View

10.

Piovesan D, Pierobon A, DiZio P, Lackner J . Measuring multi-joint stiffness during single movements: numerical validation of a novel time-frequency approach. PLoS One. 2012; 7(3):e33086. PMC: 3309009. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033086. View

11.

Mussa-Ivaldi F, Hogan N, Bizzi E . Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans. J Neurosci. 1985; 5(10):2732-43. PMC: 6565149. View

12.

Wei K, Dijkstra T, Sternad D . Stability and variability: indicators for passive stability and active control in a rhythmic task. J Neurophysiol. 2008; 99(6):3027-41. DOI: 10.1152/jn.01367.2007. View

13.

Ankarali M, Sen H, De A, Okamura A, Cowan N . Haptic feedback enhances rhythmic motor control by reducing variability, not improving convergence rate. J Neurophysiol. 2013; 111(6):1286-99. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00140.2013. View

14.

Tee K, Burdet E, Chew C, Milner T . A model of force and impedance in human arm movements. Biol Cybern. 2004; 90(5):368-75. DOI: 10.1007/s00422-004-0484-4. View

15.

Shorter A, Rouse E . Ankle Mechanical Impedance During the Stance Phase of Running. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019; 67(6):1595-1603. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2019.2940927. View

16.

Lacquaniti F, Carrozzo M, Borghese N . Time-varying mechanical behavior of multijointed arm in man. J Neurophysiol. 1993; 69(5):1443-64. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1993.69.5.1443. View

17.

Siegler I, Bardy B, Warren W . Passive vs. active control of rhythmic ball bouncing: the role of visual information. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2010; 36(3):729-50. DOI: 10.1037/a0016462. View

18.

Burdet E, Osu R, Franklin D, Yoshioka T, Milner T, Kawato M . A method for measuring endpoint stiffness during multi-joint arm movements. J Biomech. 2000; 33(12):1705-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(00)00142-1. View

19.

Avrin G, Siegler I, Makarov M, Rodriguez-Ayerbe P . Model of rhythmic ball bouncing using a visually controlled neural oscillator. J Neurophysiol. 2017; 118(4):2470-2482. PMC: 5646202. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00054.2017. View

20.

Gomi H, Kawato M . Human arm stiffness and equilibrium-point trajectory during multi-joint movement. Biol Cybern. 1997; 76(3):163-71. DOI: 10.1007/s004220050329. View