Biomimetic versus arbitrary motor control strategies for bionic hand skill learning

• Published in: Nature human behaviour Vol. 8; no. 6; pp. 1108 - 1123
• Main Authors: Schone, Hunter R., Udeozor, Malcolm, Moninghoff, Mae, Rispoli, Beth, Vandersea, James, Lock, Blair, Hargrove, Levi, Makin, Tamar R., Baker, Chris I.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01.06.2024; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 631/378/2632/2634; 639/166/985; Adult; Ambition; Anthropomorphism; Arbitrariness; Automaticity; Behavioral Sciences; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomimetics - methods; Bionics; Brain research; Cognition & reasoning; Electromyography; Embodiment; Experimental Psychology; Female; Hand - physiology; Hands; Human body; Humans; Learning; Learning - physiology; Life Sciences; Limbs; Male; Mapping; Microeconomics; Motor ability; Motor Skills - physiology; Neurosciences; Personality and Social Psychology; Prostheses; R&D; Research & development; Robotics; Young Adult
• ISSN: 2397-3374; 2397-3374
• DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01811-6

A long-standing engineering ambition has been to design anthropomorphic bionic limbs: devices that look like and are controlled in the same way as the biological body (biomimetic). The untested assumption is that biomimetic motor control enhances device embodiment, learning, generalization and automaticity. To test this, we compared biomimetic and non-biomimetic control strategies for non-disabled participants when learning to control a wearable myoelectric bionic hand operated by an eight-channel electromyography pattern-recognition system. We compared motor learning across days and behavioural tasks for two training groups: biomimetic (mimicking the desired bionic hand gesture with biological hand) and arbitrary control (mapping an unrelated biological hand gesture with the desired bionic gesture). For both trained groups, training improved bionic limb control, reduced cognitive reliance and increased embodiment over the bionic hand. Biomimetic users had more intuitive and faster control early in training. Arbitrary users matched biomimetic performance later in training. Furthermore, arbitrary users showed increased generalization to a new control strategy. Collectively, our findings suggest that biomimetic and arbitrary control strategies provide different benefits. The optimal strategy is probably not strictly biomimetic, but rather a flexible strategy within the biomimetic-to-arbitrary spectrum, depending on the user, available training opportunities and user requirements. Challenging long-held assumptions, this research reveals that people can learn to control bionic hands just as effectively, and in some ways better, using arbitrary control strategies compared with control strategies that mimic the human body.