Cited by 111EEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery

Blending of brain-machine interface and vision-guided autonomous robotics improves neuroprosthetic arm performance during grasping

Open access
Downey, John E., Weiss, Jeffrey M., Muelling, Katharina, Venkatraman, Arun, Valois, Jean-Sebastien, Hebert, Martial, Bagnell, J. Andrew, Schwartz, Andrew B. +1 more·2016·Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) offer great potential for restoring upper limb function. However, grasping objects is a complicated task and the signals extracted from the brain may not always be capable of driving these movements reliably. Vision-guided robotic assistance is one possible way to improve BMI performance. We describe a method of shared control where the user controls a prosthetic arm using a BMI and receives assistance with positioning the hand when it approaches an object. METHODS: Two human subjects with tetraplegia used a robotic arm to complete object transport tasks with and without shared control. The shared control system was designed to provide a balance between BMI-derived intention and computer assistance. An autonomous robotic grasping system identified and tracked objects and defined stable grasp positions for these objects. The system identified when the user intended to interact with an object based on the BMI-controlled movements of the robotic arm. Using shared control, BMI controlled movements and autonomous grasping commands were blended to ensure secure grasps. RESULTS: Both subjects were more successful on object transfer tasks when using shared control compared to BMI control alone. Movements made using shared control were more accurate, more efficient, and less difficult. One participant attempted a task with multiple objects and successfully lifted one of two closely spaced objects in 92 % of trials, demonstrating the potential for users to accurately execute their intention while using shared control. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of BMI control with vision-guided robotic assistance led to improved performance on object transfer tasks. Providing assistance while maintaining generalizability will make BMI systems more attractive to potential users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01364480 and NCT01894802 .

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 · 10.1186/s12984-016-0134-9

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • ICMS can deliver localized tactile percepts with natural features and can be used in human-brain-computer interface applications for better control using area S1.

    “ICMS can also be employed to deliver localized tactile percepts with natural features as well as in human-brain-computer interface applications for better control using area S1 (Collinger et al., 2013; Wodlinger et al., 2015; Downey et al., 2016).”

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

    Methods > Subjects (page unavailable) reports S1 recording arrays in a human BMI participant, and the Background reports improved robotic-arm performance with shared control. The paper does not report ICMS, localized or natural-feeling tactile percepts, or improved control through S1 stimulation; its Background instead says the arm-control BMIs discussed lacked somatosensory feedback. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Shared control movements using a brain-machine interface and vision guidance were more accurate, efficient, and less complicated than transfer tasks using BMI alone.

    “Experiments proved that shared control movements were more accurate, efficient, and less complicated than transfer tasks using BMI alone.”
  • Stimulation of the peripheral nerve or a somatosensory area of the brain (S1) with trains of electrical pulses evokes percepts that transmit information from the grasping object.

    “The necessary methodology entails stimulation of the peripheral nerve or a somatosensory area of the brain (S1) with trains of electrical pulses to evoke percepts that transmit information from the grasping object (Downey et al., 2016).”

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

    The Background (page unavailable) says arm-control BMIs do not provide somatosensory feedback, and Methods > Neural recording describes recording neural signals rather than delivering stimulation. Searches for electrical pulses, stimulation, and peripheral-nerve feedback found no passage in our copy addressing whether such stimulation evokes object-related percepts. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Downey, J. E., Weiss, J. M., Muelling, K., Venkatraman, A., Valois, J.-S., Hebert, M., Bagnell, J. A., Schwartz, A. B., & Collinger, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Collinger, Jennifer L.
Venue
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Published
2016-03-18
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
28-28
ISSN
1743-0003 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2300987908
Cited by
111
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 1
FWCI
8.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KiltHub Repository (cc-by)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ID0EY1AG644)
  • National Science Foundation (ID0EG3AG645)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Keywords
brain-computer interface, shared control, grasping, tetraplegia, object tracking, assistive robotics
MeSH terms
Neurological Rehabilitation, Adult, Brain, Female, Hand, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Quadriplegia, Robotics, Hand Strength, Upper Extremity, Brain-Computer Interfaces

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