Resnik Linda, Acluche Frantzy, Borgia Matt, Latlief Gail, Phillips Sam
Research DepartmentProvidence VA Medical CenterProvidenceRI02908USA.
Health Services, Policy and PracticeBrown UniversityProvidenceRI02903USA.
IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2018 Dec 24;7:2100113. doi: 10.1109/JTEHM.2018.2883943. eCollection 2019.
The DEKA Arm has multiple degrees of freedom which historically have been operated primarily by inertial measurement units (IMUs). However, the IMUs are not appropriate for all potential users; new control methods are needed. The purposes of this study were: 1) to describe usability and satisfaction of two controls methods-IMU and myoelectric pattern recognition (EMG-PR) controls-and 2) to compare ratings by control and amputation level. A total of 36 subjects with transradial (TR) or transhumeral (TH) amputation participated in the study. The subjects included 11 EMG-PR users (82% TR) and 25 IMU users (68% TR). The study consisted of in-laboratory training (Part A) and home use (Part B). The subjects were administered the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience satisfaction scale and other usability and satisfaction measures. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared the differences by control type. The differences were compared for those who did and did not want a DEKA Arm. The preferences for features of the DEKA Arm were compared by control type. The comparisons revealed poorer ratings of skill, comfort, and weight among EMG-PR users. The TR amputees using IMUs rated usability more favorably. TH amputees rated usability similarly. The TR amputees using EMG-PR were less satisfied with weight, pinch grip, and wrist display, whereas the TH amputees were less satisfied with the full system, wires/cables, and battery. Usability and satisfaction declined after Part B for EMG-PR users. Overall, we found that the IMU users rated the DEKA Arm and the controls more favorably than the EMG-PR users. The findings indicate that the EMG-PR system we tested was less well accepted than the IMUs for control of the DEKA Arm.
DEKA 义肢具有多个自由度,历史上主要由惯性测量单元(IMU)操作。然而,IMU并不适合所有潜在用户;需要新的控制方法。本研究的目的是:1)描述两种控制方法——IMU和肌电模式识别(EMG-PR)控制——的可用性和满意度;2)比较不同控制方式和截肢水平的评分。共有36名经桡骨(TR)或经肱骨(TH)截肢的受试者参与了该研究。受试者包括11名EMG-PR用户(82%为TR截肢)和25名IMU用户(68%为TR截肢)。该研究包括实验室培训(A部分)和家庭使用(B部分)。受试者接受了三位一体截肢与假肢体验满意度量表以及其他可用性和满意度测量。Wilcoxon秩和检验比较了不同控制类型的差异。对想要和不想要DEKA义肢的受试者的差异进行了比较。通过控制类型比较了对DEKA义肢功能的偏好。比较结果显示,EMG-PR用户在技能、舒适度和重量方面的评分较低。使用IMU的TR截肢者对可用性的评价更高。TH截肢者对可用性的评价相似。使用EMG-PR的TR截肢者对重量、捏握和手腕显示屏不太满意,而TH截肢者对整个系统、电线/电缆和电池不太满意。对于EMG-PR用户,B部分后的可用性和满意度有所下降。总体而言,我们发现IMU用户对DEKA义肢及其控制的评价比EMG-PR用户更积极。研究结果表明,我们测试的EMG-PR系统在控制DEKA义肢方面不如IMU受欢迎。