Towards Intelligent Lower Limb Prostheses with Activity Recognition

User’s volitional control of lower limb prostheses is still challenging task despite technological advancements. There is still a need for amputees to impose their will upon the prosthesis to drive in an accurate and interactive fashion. This study represents a brief review on control strategies using different sensor modalities for the purpose of phases/events detection and activity recognition. The preliminary work that is associated with middle-level control shows a simple and reliable method for event detection in real-time using a single inertial measurement unit. The outcome shows promising results

Prescription of the first prosthesis and later use in children with congenital unilateral upper limb deficiency: A systematic review

Background: The prosthetic rejection rates in children with an upper limb transversal reduction deficiency are considerable. It is unclear whether the timing of the first prescription of the prosthesis contributes to the rejection rates. Objective: To reveal whether scientific evidence is available in literature to confirm the hypothesis that the first prosthesis of children with an upper limb deficiency should be prescribed before two years of age. We expect lower rejection rates and better functional outcomes in children fitted at young age. Methods: A computerized search was performed in several databases (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Amed, Psycinfo, PiCarta and the Cochrane database). A combination of the following keywords and their synonyms was used: "prostheses, upper limb, upper extremity, arm and congenital''. Furthermore, references of conference reports, references of most relevant studies, citations of most relevant studies and related articles were checked for relevancy. Results: The search yielded 285 publications, of which four studies met the selection criteria. The methodological quality of the studies was low. All studies showed a trend of lower rejection rates in children who were provided with their first prosthesis at less than two years of age. The pooled odds ratio of two studies showed a higher rejection rate in children who were fitted over two years of age ( pooled OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.6-8.0). No scientific evidence was found concerning the relation between the age at which a prosthesis was prescribed for the first time and functional outcomes. Conclusion: In literature only little evidence was found for a relationship between the fitting of a first prosthesis in children with a congenital upper limb deficiency and rejection rates or functional outcomes. As such, clinical practice of the introduction of a prosthesis is guided by clinical experience rather than by evidence-based medicine

New developments in prosthetic arm systems

Absence of an upper limb leads to severe impairments in everyday life, which can further influence the social and mental state. For these reasons, early developments in cosmetic and body-driven prostheses date some centuries ago, and they have been evolving ever since. Following the end of the Second World War, rapid developments in technology resulted in powered myoelectric hand prosthetics. In the years to come, these devices were common on the market, though they still suffered high user abandonment rates. The reasons for rejection were trifold - insufficient functionality of the hardware, fragile design, and cumbersome control. In the last decade, both academia and industry have reached major improvements concerning technical features of upper limb prosthetics and methods for their interfacing and control. Advanced robotic hands are offered by several vendors and research groups, with a variety of active and passive wrist options that can be articulated across several degrees of freedom. Nowadays, elbow joint designs include active solutions with different weight and power options. Control features are getting progressively more sophisticated, offering options for multiple sensor integration and multi-joint articulation. Latest developments in socket designs are capable of facilitating implantable and multiple surface electromyography sensors in both traditional and osseointegration-based systems. Novel surgical techniques in combination with modern, sophisticated hardware are enabling restoration of dexterous upper limb functionality. This article is aimed at reviewing the latest state of the upper limb prosthetic market, offering insights on the accompanying technologies and techniques. We also examine the capabilities and features of some of academia’s flagship solutions and methods

New control strategies for neuroprosthetic systems

The availability of techniques to artificially excite paralyzed muscles opens enormous potential for restoring both upper and lower extremity movements with\ud neuroprostheses. Neuroprostheses must stimulate muscle, and control and regulate the artificial movements produced. Control methods to accomplish these tasks include feedforward (open-loop), feedback, and adaptive control. Feedforward control requires a great deal of information about the biomechanical behavior of the limb. For the upper extremity, an artificial motor program was developed to provide such movement program input to a neuroprosthesis. In lower extremity control, one group achieved their best results by attempting to meet naturally perceived gait objectives rather than to follow an exact joint angle trajectory. Adaptive feedforward control, as implemented in the cycleto-cycle controller, gave good compensation for the gradual decrease in performance observed with open-loop control. A neural network controller was able to control its system to customize stimulation parameters in order to generate a desired output trajectory in a given individual and to maintain tracking performance in the presence of muscle fatigue. The authors believe that practical FNS control systems must\ud exhibit many of these features of neurophysiological systems

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program

Human-centered Electric Prosthetic (HELP) Hand

Through a partnership with Indian non-profit Bhagwan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayata Samiti, we designed a functional, robust, and and low cost electrically powered prosthetic hand that communicates with unilateral, transradial, urban Indian amputees through a biointerface. The device uses compliant tendon actuation, a small linear servo, and a wearable garment outfitted with flex sensors to produce a device that, once placed inside a prosthetic glove, is anthropomorphic in both look and feel. The prosthesis was developed such that future groups can design for manufacturing and distribution in India

Healthcare Robotics

Robots have the potential to be a game changer in healthcare: improving health and well-being, filling care gaps, supporting care givers, and aiding health care workers. However, before robots are able to be widely deployed, it is crucial that both the research and industrial communities work together to establish a strong evidence-base for healthcare robotics, and surmount likely adoption barriers. This article presents a broad contextualization of robots in healthcare by identifying key stakeholders, care settings, and tasks; reviewing recent advances in healthcare robotics; and outlining major challenges and opportunities to their adoption.Comment: 8 pages, Communications of the ACM, 201

On Neuromechanical Approaches for the Study of Biological Grasp and Manipulation

Biological and robotic grasp and manipulation are undeniably similar at the level of mechanical task performance. However, their underlying fundamental biological vs. engineering mechanisms are, by definition, dramatically different and can even be antithetical. Even our approach to each is diametrically opposite: inductive science for the study of biological systems vs. engineering synthesis for the design and construction of robotic systems. The past 20 years have seen several conceptual advances in both fields and the quest to unify them. Chief among them is the reluctant recognition that their underlying fundamental mechanisms may actually share limited common ground, while exhibiting many fundamental differences. This recognition is particularly liberating because it allows us to resolve and move beyond multiple paradoxes and contradictions that arose from the initial reasonable assumption of a large common ground. Here, we begin by introducing the perspective of neuromechanics, which emphasizes that real-world behavior emerges from the intimate interactions among the physical structure of the system, the mechanical requirements of a task, the feasible neural control actions to produce it, and the ability of the neuromuscular system to adapt through interactions with the environment. This allows us to articulate a succinct overview of a few salient conceptual paradoxes and contradictions regarding under-determined vs. over-determined mechanics, under- vs. over-actuated control, prescribed vs. emergent function, learning vs. implementation vs. adaptation, prescriptive vs. descriptive synergies, and optimal vs. habitual performance. We conclude by presenting open questions and suggesting directions for future research. We hope this frank assessment of the state-of-the-art will encourage and guide these communities to continue to interact and make progress in these important areas