Abstract

Matching the dexterity, versatility, and robustness of the human hand is still an unachieved goal in bionics, robotics, and neural engineering. A major limitation for hand prosthetics lies in the challenges of reliably decoding user intention from muscle signals when controlling complex robotic hands. Most of the commercially available prosthetic hands use muscle-related signals to decode a finite number of predefined motions and some offer proportional control of open/close movements of the whole hand. Here, in contrast, we aim to offer users flexible control of individual joints of their artificial hand. We propose a novel framework for decoding neural information that enables a user to independently control 11 joints of the hand in a continuous manner-much like we control our natural hands. Toward this end, we instructed six able-bodied subjects to perform everyday object manipulation tasks combining both dynamic, free movements (e.g., grasping) and isometric force tasks (e.g., squeezing). We recorded the electromyographic and mechanomyographic activities of five extrinsic muscles of the hand in the forearm, while simultaneously monitoring 11 joints of hand and fingers using a sensorized data glove that tracked the joints of the hand. Instead of learning just a direct mapping from current muscle activity to intended hand movement, we formulated a novel autoregressive approach that combines the context of previous hand movements with instantaneous muscle activity to predict future hand movements. Specifically, we evaluated a linear vector autoregressive moving average model with exogenous inputs and a novel Gaussian process ( ) autoregressive framework to learn the continuous mapping from hand joint dynamics and muscle activity to decode intended hand movement. Our approach achieves high levels of performance (RMSE of 8°/s and ). Crucially, we use a small set of sensors that allows us to control a larger set of independently actuated degrees of freedom of a hand. This novel undersensored control is enabled through the combination of nonlinear autoregressive continuous mapping between muscle activity and joint angles. The system evaluates the muscle signals in the context of previous natural hand movements. This enables us to resolve ambiguities in situations, where muscle signals alone cannot determine the correct action as we evaluate the muscle signals in their context of natural hand movements. autoregression is a particularly powerful approach which makes not only a prediction based on the context but also represents the associated uncertainty of its predictions, thus enabling the novel notion of risk-based control in neuroprosthetics. Our results suggest that autoregressive approaches with exogenous inputs lend themselves for natural, intuitive, and continuous control in neurotechnology, with the particular focus on prosthetic restoration of natural limb function, where high dexterity is required for complex movements.

Highlights

  • T HE ability to dextrously control our hand is key to our evolution and at the centre of almost all skilled object interaction in daily life [1], [2]

  • While the hand has many more independent degrees of actuated freedom than current prosthetics, the question arises if the natural hand uses these degrees of freedom in normal daily life fully independently? In previous work, we showed that both the dominant hand [21] and the non-dominant hand [24] had joints that were highly correlated – when captured in daily life activities

  • We present the results of our study to evaluate novel ways of decoding intended hand movements from hand kinematics and muscle activity

Read more

Summary

Introduction

T HE ability to dextrously control our hand is key to our evolution and at the centre of almost all skilled object interaction in daily life [1], [2]. Despite the mechanical complexity of the human hand, the bottleneck of modern prostheses lies in improving mechatronic design [7], and in the humanmachine interface required for robustly translating the user’s intention into a suitable robotic action. This makes prosthetics cumbersome and limits their perceived effectiveness in daily life – limiting users’ ability to accept the prostheses as part of their body vs using it as a tool [8]. This explains why despite significant improvements of prosthesis acceptance achieved in the last three decades [6], a main reason for their rejection and

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call