On the Impact of Proprioception in EEG Representations and Decoding During Human-Hand Exoskeleton Interaction

• Published in: IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics Vol. 2025; pp. 186 - 192
• Main Authors: Sun, Qiang, Merino, Eva Calvo, Yang, Liuyin, Faes, Axel, Van Hulle, Marc M.
• Format: Conference Proceeding Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States IEEE 01.05.2025
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adult; Brain-Computer Interfaces; brain-computer interfaces (BCIs); Decoding; electroencephalogram (EEG); Electroencephalography; Electroencephalography - methods; Exoskeleton Device; Exoskeletons; Female; Fingers - physiology; Hand - physiology; hand exoskeleton; Hands; Humans; Male; motor intention; Motors; Movement - physiology; Propioception; proprioception; Proprioception - physiology; Stability analysis; Tracking; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1945-7901; 1945-7901
• DOI: 10.1109/ICORR66766.2025.11063039

Controlling a hand exoskeleton based on electroencephalogram (EEG)-based brain-computer interfacing (BCI) holds promise for human motor augmentation and neurore-habilitation. To achieve natural control, a critical step is to understand the impact of proprioception provided by the exoskeleton during interaction. In this study, we aim to approach the goal by quantifying EEG representations and BCI performance. We monitored 25 healthy subjects' full-scalp EEG while performing different finger movement tasks with a cable-driven hand exoskeleton. Each task involves three movement modalities, i.e., imagined (IM), passive (PM), and congruent imagined and passive (IPM) finger flexion. We found that alpha (8 - 13 Hz) and beta (13 - 30 Hz) band desynchronization in the sensorimotor area was significantly stronger for PM and IPM tasks compared to IM, with no significant difference between PM and IPM. Using machine learning models, we achieved a high accuracy in classifying exoskeleton-assisted movements from the rest condition (IPM vs. REST: 0.80 ± 0.07, PM vs. REST: 0.72 ± 0.10), with the IPM modality returning the highest accuracy. However, distinguishing between IPM and PM yielded only 0.61 ± 0.09, significantly lower than the condition of intention detection without the exoskeleton (IM vs. REST: 0.73 ± 0.08). Our findings suggest that sensorimotor EEG activity can track proprioceptive feedback induced by the hand exoskeleton. While this feedback is pronounced and distinguishable, detecting motor intention during exoskeleton movement remains highly challenging. This highlights the need for advanced decoders and control strategies for the future development of continuous BCI-actuated hand exoskeletons.