↓ Skip to main content

An exploration of grip force regulation with a low-impedance myoelectric prosthesis featuring referred haptic feedback

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An exploration of grip force regulation with a low-impedance myoelectric prosthesis featuring referred haptic feedback
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12984-015-0098-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy D. Brown, Andrew Paek, Mashaal Syed, Marcia K. O’Malley, Patricia A. Shewokis, Jose L. Contreras-Vidal, Alicia J. Davis, R. Brent Gillespie

Abstract

Haptic display technologies are well suited to relay proprioceptive, force, and contact cues from a prosthetic terminal device back to the residual limb and thereby reduce reliance on visual feedback. The ease with which an amputee interprets these haptic cues, however, likely depends on whether their dynamic signal behavior corresponds to expected behaviors-behaviors consonant with a natural limb coupled to the environment. A highly geared motor in a terminal device along with the associated high back-drive impedance influences dynamic interactions with the environment, creating effects not encountered with a natural limb. Here we explore grasp and lift performance with a backdrivable (low backdrive impedance) terminal device placed under proportional myoelectric position control that features referred haptic feedback. We fabricated a back-drivable terminal device that could be used by amputees and non-amputees alike and drove aperture (or grip force, when a stiff object was in its grasp) in proportion to a myoelectric signal drawn from a single muscle site in the forearm. In randomly ordered trials, we assessed the performance of N=10 participants (7 non-amputee, 3 amputee) attempting to grasp and lift an object using the terminal device under three feedback conditions (no feedback, vibrotactile feedback, and joint torque feedback), and two object weights that were indiscernible by vision. Both non-amputee and amputee participants scaled their grip force according to the object weight. Our results showed only minor differences in grip force, grip/load force coordination, and slip as a function of sensory feedback condition, though the grip force at the point of lift-off for the heavier object was significantly greater for amputee participants in the presence of joint torque feedback. An examination of grip/load force phase plots revealed that our amputee participants used larger safety margins and demonstrated less coordination than our non-amputee participants. Our results suggest that a backdrivable terminal device may hold advantages over non-backdrivable devices by allowing grip/load force coordination consistent with behaviors observed in the natural limb. Likewise, the inconclusive effect of referred haptic feedback on grasp and lift performance suggests the need for additional testing that includes adequate training for participants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 175 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 20%
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Unspecified 16 9%
Researcher 15 9%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 45 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 63 36%
Unspecified 16 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 8%
Computer Science 8 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 48 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2019.
All research outputs
#18,447,592
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#984
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,983
of 386,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.