Evaluation of the effects of adding vibrotactile feedback to myoelectric prosthesis users on performance and visual attention in a dual-task paradigm

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the effects of adding vibrotactile feedback to myoelectric prosthesis users on the performance time and visual attention in a dual-task paradigm.

Design:

A repeated-measures design with a counterbalanced order of two conditions.

Setting:

Laboratory setting.

Subjects:

Transradial amputees using a myoelectric prosthesis with normal or corrected eyesight (N = 12, median age = 65 ± 13 years). Exclusion criteria were orthopedic or neurologic problems.

Interventions:

Subjects performed grasping tasks with their prosthesis, while controlling a virtual car on a road with their intact hand. The dual task was performed twice: with and without vibrotactile feedback.

Main measures:

Performance time of each of the grasping tasks and gaze behavior, measured by the number of times the subjects shifted their gaze toward their hand, the relative time they applied their attention to the screen, and percentage of error in the secondary task.

Results:

The mean performance time was significantly shorter (P = 0.024) when using vibrotactile feedback (93.2 ± 9.6 seconds) compared with the performance time measured when vibrotactile feedback was not available (107.8 ± 20.3 seconds). No significant differences were found between the two conditions in the number of times the gaze shifted from the screen to the hand, in the time the subjects applied their attention to the screen, and in the time the virtual car was off-road, as a percentage of the total game time (51.4 ± 15.7 and 50.2 ± 19.5, respectively).

Conclusion:

Adding vibrotactile feedback improved performance time during grasping in a dual-task paradigm. Prosthesis users may use vibrotactile feedback to perform better during daily tasks, when multiple cognitive demands are present.

Keywords

Cognitive load transradial amputation motor control

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Behrend

Reizner

Marchessault

et al . Update on advances in upper extremity prosthetics. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36(10): 1711–1717.

Pylatiuk

Schulz

Doderlein

. Results of an Internet survey of myoelectric prosthetic hand users. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007; 31: 362–370.

Farina

Amsüss

. Reflections on the present and future of upper limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016; 13(4): 321–324.

Blank

Okamura

Kuchenbecker

. Identifying the role of proprioception in upper-limb prosthesis control: studies on targeted motion. ACM Trans Appl Perception 2010; 7(3): 15.

Gillespie

Contreras-Vidal

Shewokis

et al . Toward improved sensorimotor integration and learning using upper-limb prosthetic devices. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2010; 2010: 5077–5080.

Antfolk

D’Alonzo

Rosén

et al . Sensory feedback in upper limb prosthetics. Expert Rev Med Devices 2013; 10(1): 45–54.

Saunders

Vijayakumar

. The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2011; 8: 60.

Cordella

Ciancio

Sacchetti

et al . Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Front Neurosci 2016; 10: 209.

Paas

Tuovinen

Tabbers

et al . Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol 2003; 38: 63–71.

10.

Sobuh

Kenney

Galpin

. Visuomotor behaviours when using a myoelectric prosthesis. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2014; 11(1): 72.

11.

Parr

JVV

Vine

Harrison

et al . Examining the spatiotemporal disruption to gaze when using a myoelectric prosthetic hand. J Mot Behav 2017; 19: 1–10.

12.

Dupont

Plummer

Jr.

Power and sample size calculations for studies involving linear regression. Control Clin Trials 1998; 19(6): 589–601.

13.

Burger

Franchignoni

Heinemann

et al . Validation of the orthotics and prosthetics user survey upper extremity functional status module in people with unilateral upper limb amputation. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40: 393–399.

14.

Gallagher

Franchignoni

Giordano

et al . Trinity amputation and prosthesis experience scales: a psychometric assessment using classical test theory and Rasch analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 89(6): 487–496.

15.

Land

Mennie

Rusted

. The roles of vision and eye movements in the control of activities of daily living. Perception 1999; 28: 1311–1328.

16.

Witteveen

de Rond

Rietman

et al . Hand-opening feedback for myoelectric forearm prostheses: performance in virtual grasping tasks influenced by different levels of distraction. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012; 49(10): 1517–1526.

17.

Bouwsema

Kyberd

Hill

et al . Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012; 49(9): 1331–1348.

18.

Raveh

Friedman

Portnoy

. Visuomotor behaviours and performance in a dual-task paradigm with and without vibrotactile feedback when using a myoelectric controlled hand. Assist Technol 2017; 19: 1–7.

19.

Pomplun

Reingold

Shen

. Investigating the visual span in comparative search: the effects of task difficulty and divided attention. Cognition 2001; 81(2): B57–B67.

20.

Flanagan

Bowman

Johansson

. Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2006; 16(6): 650–659.

21.

Feix

Romero

Schmiedmayer

et al . The GRASP taxonomy of human grasp types. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Sys 2016; 46(1): 66–77.

22.

Wentink

Mulder

Rietman

et al . Vibrotactile stimulation of the upper leg: effects of location, stimulation method and habituation. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2011; 2011: 1668–1671.

23.

Fallahian

Saeedi

Mokhtarinia

et al . Sensory feedback add-on for upper-limb prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int 2017; 41(3): 314–317.

24.

Clemente

D’Alonzo

Controzzi

et al . 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 2016; 24(12): 1314–1322.

25.

Carey

Lura

Highsmith

. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2015; 52(3): 247–262.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB