EMG pattern recognition compared to foot control of the DEKA Arm

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 13; no. 10; p. e0204854
• Main Authors: Resnik, Linda J, Acluche, Frantzy, Borgia, Matthew, Cancio, Jill, Latlief, Gail, Phillips, Samuel, Sasson, Nicole
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 18.10.2018; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Activities of Daily Living; Adult; Aged; Amputation; Amputees - psychology; Analysis; Arm - physiology; Artificial Limbs; Biology and Life Sciences; Control methods; Degrees of freedom; Electromyography; Electromyography - methods; Engineering and Technology; Female; Group dynamics; Humans; Male; Medicine and Health Sciences; Middle Aged; Muscle contraction; Patient Satisfaction; Pattern recognition; Pattern recognition (Computers); Pattern Recognition, Automated - methods; Prostheses; Prosthesis Design; Prosthetics; Prototypes; Research and Analysis Methods; Veterans; Young Adult; New York; Rhode Island; United States > US
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204854

EMG pattern recognition control (EMG-PR) is a promising option for control of upper limb prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). The purposes of this study were to 1) evaluate outcomes of EMG-PR and inertial measurement units (IMU) control of the DEKA Arm as compared to personal prosthesis; and 2) compare outcomes of EMG-PR to IMU control of DEKA Arm. This was a quasi-experimental, multi-site study with repeated measures that compared non-randomized groups using two types of controls: EMG-PR and IMUs. Subjects (N = 36) were transradial (TR) and transhumeral (TH) amputees. Outcomes were collected at Baseline (using personal prosthesis), and after in-laboratory training (Part A), and home use (Part B). Data was compared to personal prosthesis, stratified by amputation level and control type. Outcomes were also compared by control type. The EMG-PR group had greater prosthesis use after Part A, but worse dexterity, lower satisfaction, and slower activity performance compared to Baseline; the IMU group had slower activity performance. After Part B, the EMG-PR group had less perceived activity difficulty; the IMU group had improved activity performance, improved disability and activity difficulty, but slower performance. No differences were observed for TH group by control type in Part A or B. The TR group using EMG-PR had worse dexterity (Parts A & B), and activity performance (Part A) as compared to IMU users. Findings suggest that for the TR group that IMUs are a more effective control method for the DEKA Arm as compared to the EMG-PR prototypes employed in this study. Further research is needed to refine the EMG-PR systems for multi-DOF devices. Future studies should include a larger sample of TH amputees. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551420.