Original researchMyoelectric Prosthesis Users Improve Performance Time and Accuracy Using Vibrotactile Feedback When Visual Feedback Is Disturbed
Section snippets
Participants
A total of 12 myoelectric prosthesis users were recruited for the study. We calculated the sample size using an interactive program for performing power and sample size calculations.a A preliminary experiment with 20 nonimpaired participants showed that the standard deviation of our primary outcome measure, the performance time of the modified Box and Blocks Test, was 20% of the mean performance time. If the expected difference in the performance time between the trials with and without
Results
The participants in our study were experienced prosthesis users, with a median time of 43 years after their limb loss. The median duration of time for using the prosthesis per day was 15.5 hours (see table 1). All participants were also highly adjusted to using a prosthesis, both socially and physically, as was indicated by the high scores in the Orthotics and Prosthetics User Survey-Upper Extremity Functional Status and Revised Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales questionnaires
Discussion
In this study, we tested the effects of adding VTF to a myoelectric prosthesis on the performance time and accuracy of a grasping and transferring task. Our main finding is that when visual feedback is disturbed, the addition of VTF improves performance time and reduces the number of errors when performing a functional grasping test. Unlike previous studies, which provided different feedback combinations (visual, auditory, tactile),30, 31, 32 in this study we deprived the participants of both
Conclusions
In conclusion, VTF can be an effective addition to myoelectric prostheses when visual feedback is disturbed, assisting the user to improve performance time and accuracy of grasping and manipulation. If VTF is added to current myoelectric hands, it may assist them to improve their functional ability during daily life activities in different environments.
Suppliers
- a.
PS Power and sample size calculation software, version 3.1.2; Vanderbilt University.
- b.
Flexiforce A201; Tekscan Inc.
- c.
Shaftless vibration motor 10 × 2.0 mm; Pololu.
- d.
Arduino Uno Rev3; Arduino Holding.
- e.
Open-source Arduino software, version 1.8.5; Ardunio Holding.
- f.
Miracase 2600 mAh portable power bank; Hong Kong Miracle Technology Co, Ltd.
- g.
Box and Blocks Test; Patterson Medical.
- h.
DCcduino UNO; DCc Electronics.
- i.
IR fixed lens camera F-717; Provision-ISR.
- j.
IBM SPSS statistics, version 21; IBM.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Efrat Gabay, BSc, and Or Weinstein, BSc, from the Department of Biomedical Engineering, Fleischmann Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University, for their help with design and construction of the VTF system. This work was performed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a PhD degree of Eitan Raveh, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
References (47)
- et al.
Management of major traumatic upper extremity amputations
Orthop Clin North Am
(2016) - et al.
Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
(2008) - et al.
Adding vibrotactile feedback to a myoelectric-controlled hand improves performance when online visual feedback is disturbed
Hum Mov Sci
(2018) - et al.
Power and sample size calculations for studies involving linear regression
Control Clin Trials
(1998) - et al.
Control strategies in object manipulation tasks
Curr Opin Neurobiol
(2006) - et al.
Reflections on the present and future of upper limb prostheses
Expert Rev Med Devices
(2016) - et al.
Control of upper limb prostheses: terminology and proportional myoelectric control - a review
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng
(2012) - et al.
Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review
J Rehabil Res Dev
(2015) - et al.
Results of an Internet survey of myoelectric prosthetic hand users
Prosthet Orthot Int
(2007) - et al.
A review of invasive and non-invasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses
Expert Rev Med Devices
(2017)
Sensory feedback in upper limb prosthetics
Expert Rev Med Devices
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
Vibrotactile grasping force and hand aperture feedback for myoelectric forearm prosthesis users
Prosthet Orthot Int
The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control
J Neuroeng Rehabil
Sensory feedback by peripheral nerve stimulation improves task performance in individuals with upper limb loss using a myoelectric prosthesis
J Neural Eng
Restoring natural sensory feedback in real-time bidirectional hand prostheses
Sci Transl Med
Stiffness feedback for myoelectric forearm prostheses using vibrotactile stimulation
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng
Design and evaluation of a sensory feedback system that provides grasping pressure in a myoelectric hand
Rehabil Res Dev
Forearm amputees’ views of prosthesis use and sensory feedback
J Hand Ther
Fundamentals of motor control
Evaluation of performance-based outcome measures for the upper limb: a systematic review
PM R
Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation
J Rehabil Med
Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales: a psychometric assessment using classical test theory and rasch analysis
Am J Phys Med Rehabil
Cited by (0)
Clinical Trial Registration No.: NCT02749643.
Disclosures: none.