Outcomes and Perception of a Conventional and Alternative Myoelectric Control Strategy: A Study of Experienced and New Multiarticulating Hand Users.
Outcomes and Perception of a Conventional and Alternative Myoelectric Control Strategy: A Study of Experienced and New Multiarticulating Hand Users.
复制标题
传统和替代肌电控制策略的结果和认知：对经验丰富和新的多关节手用户的研究。
DOI：
10.1097/jpo.0000000000000055
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kaliki,Rahul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vilarino,Martin;Moon,Jayet;Pool,KaseyRogner;Varghese,Joby;Ryan,Tiffany;Thakor,NitishV;Kaliki,Rahul
多关节手的发展为上肢截肢者恢复失去的功能提供了潜力。然而，由于切换假肢模式的传统控制策略（如手握），实现商业化设备的全部潜力受到限制。例如，要在一种传统策略中切换握把，假体使用者必须产生肌电图（EMG）触发器（如收缩），这是繁琐且不直观的。由于这个原因，替代控制策略已经出现，寻求促进抓地力切换。一个特定的应用程序使用带有抓地力信息的射频识别（RFID）标签。这些标签可以放置在环境中的物体上，也可以随身携带。在接近RFID标签时，用户的假体读取标签上编程的握力，并命令手进入该握力。本研究的目的是比较传统策略（使用肌电图触发器）和替代策略（使用射频识别标签）。方法：研究评估了三个受试者：两个积极使用多关节手的用户（“有经验的”用户）和一个从未戴过多关节手的用户（“新”用户）。通过两个性能指标对受试者进行评估：触发器完成时间和第一次尝试成功的触发器百分比（第一次尝试成功率）。受试者还对每种策略的难度、努力程度和挫败程度进行了评估。结果：结果表明，经验丰富的用户使用肌电图策略触发完成时间更快，而新用户的结果则好坏参半。总的来说，三名受试者认为射频识别策略比肌电策略更容易、更累、更令人沮丧。讨论与结论：有必要在更大的研究对象池中继续研究，以确定影响性能和患者偏好的因素。这将有助于确定最佳战略，以充分发挥新的商业设备的潜力。尽管如此，作者认为这两种策略的协同使用对有经验的和新的多关节手使用者都有很大的好处。
Introduction: The development of multiarticulating hands holds the potential to restore lost function for upper-limb amputees. However, access to the full potential of commercialized devices is limited due to conventional control strategies for switching prosthesis modes, such as hand grips. For example, to switch grips in one conventional strategy, the prosthesis user must generate electromyogram (EMG) triggers (such as a cocontraction), which are cumbersome and nonintuitive. For this reason, alternative control strategies have emerged, which seek to facilitate grip switching. One specific application uses radio frequency identification (RFID) tags programmed with grip information. These tags can be placed on objects in the environment or carried on person. Upon approaching an RFID tag, the user’s prosthesis reads the grip programmed on the tag and commands the hand into that grip. The purpose of this study was to compare the conventional strategy (using EMG triggers) with the alternative strategy (using RFID tags).Methods: The study evaluated three subjects: two users who actively use multiarticulating hands (“experienced” users) and one user who had never worn a multiarticulating hand (“new” user). Subjects were evaluated on two performance metrics: trigger completion time and the percentage of triggers that were successful on first attempt (first attempt success rate). Subjects also rated the difficulty, effort, and frustration with each strategy.Results: Results suggested faster trigger completion times with the EMG strategy for the experienced users and mixed results for the new user. Overall, the three subjects rated the RFID strategy as less difficult, tiring, and frustrating than the EMG strategy.Discussion and Conclusions: Continued studies with a larger subject pool are necessary to determine factors influencing performance and patient preference. This would allow identification of best strategies to access the full potential of new commercial devices. Still, the authors suggest that the synergistic use of both strategies can yield great benefits for both experienced and new multiarticulating hand users.