Lobo-Prat Joan, Nizamis Kostas, Janssen Mariska M H P, Keemink Arvid Q L, Veltink Peter H, Koopman Bart F J M, Stienen Arno H A
Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, Enschede, 7522, NB, The Netherlands.
Department of Rehabilitation, Radboud University Medical Center, Reinier Postlaan 4, Nijmegen, 6500, HB, The Netherlands.
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2017 Jul 12;14(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12984-017-0282-6.
Adults with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) can benefit from devices that actively support their arm function. A critical component of such devices is the control interface as it is responsible for the human-machine interaction. Our previous work indicated that surface electromyography (sEMG) and force-based control with active gravity and joint-stiffness compensation were feasible solutions for the support of elbow movements (one degree of freedom). In this paper, we extend the evaluation of sEMG- and force-based control interfaces to simultaneous and proportional control of planar arm movements (two degrees of freedom).
Three men with DMD (18-23 years-old) with different levels of arm function (i.e. Brooke scores of 4, 5 and 6) performed a series of line-tracing tasks over a tabletop surface using an experimental active arm support. The arm movements were controlled using three control methods: sEMG-based control, force-based control with stiffness compensation (FSC), and force-based control with no compensation (FNC). The movement performance was evaluated in terms of percentage of task completion, tracing error, smoothness and speed.
For subject S1 (Brooke 4) FNC was the preferred method and performed better than FSC and sEMG. FNC was not usable for subject S2 (Brooke 5) and S3 (Brooke 6). Subject S2 presented significantly lower movement speed with sEMG than with FSC, yet he preferred sEMG since FSC was perceived to be too fatiguing. Subject S3 could not successfully use neither of the two force-based control methods, while with sEMG he could reach almost his entire workspace.
Movement performance and subjective preference of the three control methods differed with the level of arm function of the participants. Our results indicate that all three control methods have to be considered in real applications, as they present complementary advantages and disadvantages. The fact that the two weaker subjects (S2 and S3) experienced the force-based control interfaces as fatiguing suggests that sEMG-based control interfaces could be a better solution for adults with DMD. Yet force-based control interfaces can be a better alternative for those cases in which voluntary forces are higher than the stiffness forces of the arms.
患有杜氏肌营养不良症（DMD）的成年人可受益于能积极支持其手臂功能的设备。此类设备的一个关键组件是控制接口，因为它负责人机交互。我们之前的研究表明，表面肌电图（sEMG）以及具有主动重力和关节刚度补偿的基于力的控制是支持肘部运动（一个自由度）的可行解决方案。在本文中，我们将对基于sEMG和基于力的控制接口的评估扩展到平面手臂运动（两个自由度）的同步和比例控制。
三名患有DMD的男性（年龄在18 - 23岁之间），手臂功能水平不同（即布鲁克评分分别为4、5和6），使用实验性主动手臂支撑在桌面上执行了一系列线条追踪任务。手臂运动通过三种控制方法进行控制：基于sEMG的控制、具有刚度补偿的基于力的控制（FSC）以及无补偿的基于力的控制（FNC）。从任务完成百分比、追踪误差、平滑度和速度方面评估运动表现。
对于受试者S1（布鲁克4分），FNC是首选方法，其表现优于FSC和sEMG。FNC对受试者S2（布鲁克5分）和S3（布鲁克6分）不可用。受试者S2使用sEMG时的运动速度明显低于使用FSC时，但他更喜欢sEMG，因为感觉FSC太累。受试者S3无法成功使用两种基于力的控制方法中的任何一种，而使用sEMG时他几乎可以到达整个工作空间。
三种控制方法的运动表现和主观偏好因参与者的手臂功能水平而异。我们的结果表明，在实际应用中必须考虑所有三种控制方法，因为它们具有互补的优缺点。两个较弱的受试者（S2和S3）感觉基于力的控制接口疲劳这一事实表明，基于sEMG的控制接口可能是患有DMD的成年人的更好解决方案。然而，对于那些自愿力高于手臂刚度力的情况，基于力的控制接口可能是更好的选择。
Zotero 插件
