Valle Giacomo, D'Anna Edoardo, Strauss Ivo, Clemente Francesco, Granata Giuseppe, Di Iorio Riccardo, Controzzi Marco, Stieglitz Thomas, Rossini Paolo M, Petrini Francesco M, Micera Silvestro
Bertarelli Foundation Chair in Translational Neuroengineering, Center for Neuroprosthetics and Institute of Bioengineering, School of Engineering, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.
The BioRobotics Institute and Department of Excellence in AI and Robotics, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020 Apr 3;8:287. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00287. eCollection 2020.
Recent experiments have shown that neural stimulation can successfully restore sensory feedback in upper-limb amputees improving their ability to control the prosthesis. However, the potential advantages of invasive sensory feedback with respect to non-invasive solutions have not been yet identified. Our hypothesis was that a difference would appear when the subject cannot focus all the attention to the use of the prosthesis, but some additional activities require his/her cognitive attention, which is a quite common situation in real-life conditions. To verify this hypothesis, we asked a trans-radial amputee, equipped with a bidirectional hand prosthesis, to perform motor tasks also in combination with a cognitive task. Sensory feedback was provided via intraneural (invasive) or electro-tactile (non-invasive) stimulation. We collected also data related to self-confidence. While both approaches were able to significantly improve the motor performance of the subject when no additional cognitive effort was asked, the manual accuracy was not affected by the cognitive task only when intraneural feedback was provided. The highest self-confidence was obtained when intraneural sensory feedback was provided. Our findings show that intraneural sensory feedback is more robust to dual tasks than non-invasive feedback. This is the first direct comparison between invasive and non-invasive approaches for restoring sensory feedback and it could suggest an advantage of using invasive solutions. www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02848846.
最近的实验表明,神经刺激能够成功恢复上肢截肢者的感觉反馈,提高他们控制假肢的能力。然而,侵入性感觉反馈相对于非侵入性解决方案的潜在优势尚未明确。我们的假设是,当受试者无法将所有注意力都集中在假肢使用上,而是一些其他活动需要其认知注意力时(这在现实生活中是相当常见的情况),差异就会显现出来。为了验证这一假设,我们让一名佩戴双向手部假肢的经桡骨截肢者同时进行运动任务和认知任务。通过神经内(侵入性)或电触觉(非侵入性)刺激提供感觉反馈。我们还收集了与自信心相关的数据。当不要求额外的认知努力时,两种方法都能显著提高受试者的运动表现,但只有在提供神经内反馈时,手动准确性才不受认知任务的影响。提供神经内感觉反馈时获得了最高的自信心。我们的研究结果表明,与非侵入性反馈相比,神经内感觉反馈在双重任务中更具稳健性。这是恢复感觉反馈的侵入性和非侵入性方法之间的首次直接比较,它可能暗示了使用侵入性解决方案的优势。 临床试验注册号:NCT02848846。 (注:www.ClinicalTrials.gov为临床试验注册网站,这里保留英文是因为它是特定的专业术语和链接,在中文语境中一般不翻译)