Dexterous control of a prosthetic hand using fine-wire intramuscular electrodes in targeted extrinsic muscles - PubMed
Dexterous control of a prosthetic hand using fine-wire intramuscular electrodes in targeted extrinsic muscles
Christian Cipriani et al. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 Jul.
Abstract
Restoring dexterous motor function equivalent to that of the human hand after amputation is one of the major goals in rehabilitation engineering. To achieve this requires the implementation of a effortless human-machine interface that bridges the artificial hand to the sources of volition. Attempts to tap into the neural signals and to use them as control inputs for neuroprostheses range in invasiveness and hierarchical location in the neuromuscular system. Nevertheless today, the primary clinically viable control technique is the electromyogram measured peripherally by surface electrodes. This approach is neither physiologically appropriate nor dexterous because arbitrary finger movements or hand postures cannot be obtained. Here we demonstrate the feasibility of achieving real-time, continuous and simultaneous control of a multi-digit prosthesis directly from forearm muscles signals using intramuscular electrodes on healthy subjects. Subjects contracted physiologically appropriate muscles to control four degrees of freedom of the fingers of a physical robotic hand independently. Subjects described the control as intuitive and showed the ability to drive the hand into 12 postures without explicit training. This is the first study in which peripheral neural correlates were processed in real-time and used to control multiple digits of a physical hand simultaneously in an intuitive and direct way.
Figures

Experimental setup. (a) Block diagram of the myoelectric controller. FPL: flexor pollicis longus. FDP1, FDP2: first and second compartment of the flexor digitorum profundis. APL: abductor pollicis longus. ADC: analog to digital converter. MAV: mean absolute value. Pt: posture control command sent to the robotic hand. (b) Subject wearing an orthopedic splint on the experimental hand sat in front of a computer screen and the robotic hand. Computer screen presented desired posture cues while the hand was controlled in real-time. (c) Pictures of the 12 target postures P1..P12 used in experiment 1. Last two fingers of the hand are not shown for clarity (since these were not under direct control). It is worth noting that the target position of the fingers in postures P5 and P10 are similar but the two postures required activations with different timing in order to position the thumb properly (under the index and middle in posture P5; over the index and middle in P10). (d), (e) Representation of the sinusoids that subjects tracked in experiment 2A–B, respectively.

Posture matching experiment representative trial. Recorded EMG signals (in black—left Y axis) and actual position of the DoF in the robotic hand (in blue—right Y axis) for the four DoFs, in a representative posture (i.e., posture P3—a palmar grasp). Superimposed on the position trajectories is the desired target position (continuous horizontal line) within the ±15% envelope (dotted horizontal lines). Gray time window (the same for all four graphs) denotes when the four DoFs were positioned within the ±15% envelope; thus time metric Tc is by definition at the end of such a gray window.

Posture matching experiment outcomes. Whiskers denote the standard error of the mean. (a) Performance metrics achieved by subjects S3 and S4. In the bottom panel, bars refer to the minimum posture error (MPE) whereas circles refer to the End-of-trial mean Posture Error (EPE) and were computed only for unsuccessful trials. (b) Completion rate (CR) and completion time (Tc) as a function of the number of controlled degrees of freedom.

Sinusoid tracking experiment outcomes. (a) EMG signals and relative controlled DoF positions for a representative sinusoid. (b) Differences in performance metrics between subjects S1 and S2 and subjects S3 and S4. Asterisks denote statistically significant differences as computed by Wilcoxon rank sum tests. (c) Confusion matrices of the relative mean activity (RMA) and relative variance activity (RVA) from subjects S1 and S2 (experiment 2B). (d) Confusion matrices of the RMA and RVA from subjects S3 and S4 (experiment 2A).
Similar articles
-
Birdwell JA, Hargrove LJ, Weir RF, Kuiken TA. Birdwell JA, et al. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015 Jan;62(1):218-26. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2014.2344854. Epub 2014 Jul 31. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2015. PMID: 25099395 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Classification of finger activation for use in a robotic prosthesis arm.
Peleg D, Braiman E, Yom-Tov E, Inbar GF. Peleg D, et al. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002 Dec;10(4):290-3. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2002.806831. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2002. PMID: 12611366 Clinical Trial.
-
Dewald HA, Lukyanenko P, Lambrecht JM, Anderson JR, Tyler DJ, Kirsch RF, Williams MR. Dewald HA, et al. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Nov 21;16(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0607-8. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019. PMID: 31752886 Free PMC article.
-
Farina D, Jiang N, Rehbaum H, Holobar A, Graimann B, Dietl H, Aszmann OC. Farina D, et al. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014 Jul;22(4):797-809. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2305111. Epub 2014 Feb 11. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2014. PMID: 24760934 Review.
-
Intuitive neuromyoelectric control of a dexterous bionic arm using a modified Kalman filter.
George JA, Davis TS, Brinton MR, Clark GA. George JA, et al. J Neurosci Methods. 2020 Jan 15;330:108462. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2019.108462. Epub 2019 Nov 8. J Neurosci Methods. 2020. PMID: 31711883 Review.
Cited by
-
Artificial proprioceptive feedback for myoelectric control.
Pistohl T, Joshi D, Ganesh G, Jackson A, Nazarpour K. Pistohl T, et al. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015 May;23(3):498-507. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2014.2355856. Epub 2014 Sep 9. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2015. PMID: 25216484 Free PMC article.
-
The myokinetic control interface: tracking implanted magnets as a means for prosthetic control.
Tarantino S, Clemente F, Barone D, Controzzi M, Cipriani C. Tarantino S, et al. Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 7;7(1):17149. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17464-1. Sci Rep. 2017. PMID: 29215082 Free PMC article.
-
Kaya M, Binli MK, Ozbay E, Yanar H, Mishchenko Y. Kaya M, et al. Sci Data. 2018 Oct 16;5:180211. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.211. Sci Data. 2018. PMID: 30325349 Free PMC article.
-
Malesevic N, Björkman A, Andersson GS, Cipriani C, Antfolk C. Malesevic N, et al. Sensors (Basel). 2022 Jul 5;22(13):5054. doi: 10.3390/s22135054. Sensors (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35808549 Free PMC article.
-
Rabieh N, Ojovan SM, Shmoel N, Erez H, Maydan E, Spira ME. Rabieh N, et al. Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 4;6:36498. doi: 10.1038/srep36498. Sci Rep. 2016. PMID: 27812002 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Dhillon GS, Horch KW. Direct neural sensory feedback and control of a prosthetic arm. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehab Eng. 2005 Dec;13(4):468–472. - PubMed
-
- Jia X, et al. Residual motor signal in long-term human severed peripheral nerves and feasibility of neural signal-controlled artificial limb. J Hand Surgery. 2007;32:657–666. - PubMed
-
- Rossini PM, et al. Double nerve intraneural interface implant on a human amputee for robotic hand control. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121:777–783. - PubMed
-
- Kuiken TA, et al. Targeted reinnervation for enhanced prosthetic arm function in a woman with a proximal amputation: A case study. Lancet. 2007;369:371–380. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous