EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm

Linda J Resnik, Frantzy Acluche, Matthew Borgia, Jill Cancio, Gail Latlief, Samuel Phillips, Nicole Sasson, Linda J Resnik, Frantzy Acluche, Matthew Borgia, Jill Cancio, Gail Latlief, Samuel Phillips, Nicole Sasson

Abstract

Introduction: EMG pattern recognition control (EMG-PR) is a promising option for control of upper limb prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). The purposes of this study were to 1) evaluate outcomes of EMG-PR and inertial measurement units (IMU) control of the DEKA Arm as compared to personal prosthesis; and 2) compare outcomes of EMG-PR to IMU control of DEKA Arm.

Methods: This was a quasi-experimental, multi-site study with repeated measures that compared non-randomized groups using two types of controls: EMG-PR and IMUs. Subjects (N = 36) were transradial (TR) and transhumeral (TH) amputees. Outcomes were collected at Baseline (using personal prosthesis), and after in-laboratory training (Part A), and home use (Part B). Data was compared to personal prosthesis, stratified by amputation level and control type. Outcomes were also compared by control type.

Results: The EMG-PR group had greater prosthesis use after Part A, but worse dexterity, lower satisfaction, and slower activity performance compared to Baseline; the IMU group had slower activity performance. After Part B, the EMG-PR group had less perceived activity difficulty; the IMU group had improved activity performance, improved disability and activity difficulty, but slower performance. No differences were observed for TH group by control type in Part A or B. The TR group using EMG-PR had worse dexterity (Parts A & B), and activity performance (Part A) as compared to IMU users.

Discussion/conclusion: Findings suggest that for the TR group that IMUs are a more effective control method for the DEKA Arm as compared to the EMG-PR prototypes employed in this study. Further research is needed to refine the EMG-PR systems for multi-DOF devices. Future studies should include a larger sample of TH amputees.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551420.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram Part…
Fig 1. CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram Part A.
Fig 2
Fig 2
CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram Part B.

References

    1. Sarrafian S, editor. Kinesiology and functional characteristics of the upper limb 3d ed Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2004.
    1. Castellini C, Artemiadis P, Wininger M, Ajoudani A, Alimusaj M, Bicchi A, et al. Proceedings of the first workshop on Peripheral Machine Interfaces: going beyond traditional surface electromyography. Frontiers in neurorobotics. 2014;8(22).
    1. Carey SL, Lura DJ, Highsmith MJ. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: Systematic literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(3):247–62. 10.1682/JRRD.2014.08.0192
    1. Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K, Fantini C. Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: user experience. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2013.
    1. Resnik L, Huang HH, Winslow A, Crouch DL, Zhang F, Wolk N. Evaluation of EMG pattern recognition for upper limb prosthesis control: a case study in comparison with direct myoelectric control. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2018;15(1):23 10.1186/s12984-018-0361-3
    1. Hargrove LJ, Miller LA, Turner K, Kuiken TA. Myoelectric Pattern Recognition Outperforms Direct Control for Transhumeral Amputees with Targeted Muscle Reinnervation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Scientific reports. 2017;7(1):13840 10.1038/s41598-017-14386-w
    1. Resnik L. Research update: VA study to optimize DEKA arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(3):ix–x.
    1. Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. The DEKA Arm: its features, functionality, and evolution during the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2014;38(6):492–504. 10.1177/0309364613506913
    1. Resnik L, Etter K, Klinger SL, Kambe C. Using virtual reality environment to facilitate training with advanced upper-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):707–18.
    1. Resnik L, Klinger SL, Korp K, Walters LS. Training protocol for a powered shoulder prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(8):vii–xvi. 10.1682/JRRD.2014.07.0162
    1. Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1969;50(6):311–9.
    1. Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability of outcome measures for people with lower-limb amputations: distinguishing true change from statistical error. Phys Ther. 2011;91(4):555–65. 10.2522/ptj.20100287
    1. Resnik L, Adams L, Borgia M, Delikat J, Disla R, Ebner C, et al. Development and Evaluation of the Activities Measure for Upper Limb Amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012.
    1. Sanderson ER, Scott RN. UNB Test of Prosthetics Function: A Test for Unilateral Upper Extremity Amputees, Ages 2–13 Fredericton: University of New Brunswick; 1985.
    1. Resnik L, Borgia M, Acluche F. Timed activity performance in persons with upper limb amputation: A preliminary study. J Hand Ther. 2017.
    1. Resnik L, Borgia M, Acluche F. Brief activity performance measure for upper limb amputees: BAM-ULA. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017:309364616684196.
    1. Resnik L, Borgia M. Reliability, Validity and Responsiveness of the QuickDASH in Patients with Upper Limb Amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015.
    1. Heinemann AW, Bode RK, O'Reilly C. Development and measurement properties of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): a comprehensive set of clinical outcome instruments. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27(3):191–206. 10.1080/03093640308726682
    1. Stratford P, Gill C, Westaway M, Binkley J. Assessing disability and change on individual patients: a report of a patient specific measure. Physiotherapy Canada. 1995;47(4):258–63.
    1. Wong DL, Baker CM. Smiling faces as anchor for pain intensity scales. Pain. 2001;89(2–3):295–300.
    1. Burckhardt CS, Anderson KL. The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): reliability, validity, and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:60 10.1186/1477-7525-1-60
    1. Resnik L, Plow M, Jette A. Development of CRIS: measure of community reintegration of injured service members. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(4):469–80.
    1. Desmond DM, MacLachlan M. Factor structure of the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales (TAPES) with individuals with acquired upper limb amputations. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;84(7):506–13.
    1. Resnik L, al. e. User Experience of Controlling the DEKA Arm with EMG Pattern Recognition. Under Review.
    1. Kuiken TA, Dumanian GA, Lipschutz RD, Miller LA, Stubblefield KA. The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2004;28(3):245–53. 10.3109/03093640409167756
    1. Miller LA, Stubblefield KA, Lipschutz RD, Lock BA, Kuiken TA. Improved myoelectric prosthesis control using targeted reinnervation surgery: a case series. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2008;16(1):46–50. 10.1109/TNSRE.2007.911817

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner