Cited by 255Neuroscience and Neural EngineeringMuscle activation and electromyography studiesProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics

Sensory feedback by peripheral nerve stimulation improves task performance in individuals with upper limb loss using a myoelectric prosthesis

Open access
Schiefer, Matthew, Tan, Daniel, Sidek, Steven M, Tyler, Dustin J·2016·Journal of Neural Engineering

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Tactile feedback is critical to grip and object manipulation. Its absence results in reliance on visual and auditory cues. Our objective was to assess the effect of sensory feedback on task performance in individuals with limb loss. APPROACH: Stimulation of the peripheral nerves using implanted cuff electrodes provided two subjects with sensory feedback with intensity proportional to forces on the thumb, index, and middle fingers of their prosthetic hand during object manipulation. Both subjects perceived the sensation on their phantom hand at locations corresponding to the locations of the forces on the prosthetic hand. A bend sensor measured prosthetic hand span. Hand span modulated the intensity of sensory feedback perceived on the thenar eminence for subject 1 and the middle finger for subject 2. We performed three functional tests with the blindfolded subjects. First, the subject tried to determine whether or not a wooden block had been placed in his prosthetic hand. Second, the subject had to locate and remove magnetic blocks from a metal table. Third, the subject performed the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP). We also measured the subject's sense of embodiment with a survey and his self-confidence. MAIN RESULTS: Blindfolded performance with sensory feedback was similar to sighted performance in the wooden block and magnetic block tasks. Performance on the SHAP, a measure of hand mechanical function and control, was similar with and without sensory feedback. An embodiment survey showed an improved sense of integration of the prosthesis in self body image with sensory feedback. SIGNIFICANCE: Sensory feedback by peripheral nerve stimulation improved object discrimination and manipulation, embodiment, and confidence. With both forms of feedback, the blindfolded subjects tended toward results obtained with visual feedback.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1741-2560/13/1/016001

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Electrical stimulation in the form of spikes has been given to the residual stump nerve of a patient through typically implanted electrodes, and psychophysical judgments and verbal reports were gathered.

    “Electrical stimulation in the form of spikes has been given to the residual stump nerve of a patient through typically implanted electrodes, and psychophysical judgments and verbal reports were gathered (Polasek et al., 2009; Schiefer et al., 2016).”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Schiefer et al., 2016

  • Repeated clinical demonstration with replicated results has been achieved for peripheral interfaces.

    “Repeated clinical demonstration with replicated results has been achieved for peripheral interfaces (Schiefer et al., 2016).”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Schiefer et al., 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schiefer, M., Tan, D., Sidek, S. M., & Tyler, D. J.
Affiliations
Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Tyler, Dustin J
Venue
Journal of Neural Engineering
Published
2015-12-08
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
016001
ISSN
  • 1741-2552 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2560
OpenAlex
W2286606309
Cited by
255
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 3
FWCI
6.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neural Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (A6156R)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) RENET (N66001-12-C-4173)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Keywords
sensory feedback, peripheral nerve stimulation, myoelectric prosthesis, upper limb loss, tactile feedback, phantom hand, hand span, embodiment, self-confidence, object manipulation, Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure
MeSH terms
Amputation, Surgical, Artificial Limbs, Electric Stimulation, Hand, Humans, Prosthesis Design, Task Performance and Analysis, Touch, Hand Strength, Equipment Failure Analysis, Feedback, Sensory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review