Cited by 68Prosthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesTactile and Sensory Interactions

Long-Term Home-Use of Sensory-Motor-Integrated Bidirectional Bionic Prosthetic Arms Promotes Functional, Perceptual, and Cognitive Changes

Open access
Schofield, Jonathon S., Shell, Courtney E., Beckler, Dylan T., Thumser, Zachary C., Marasco, Paul D.·2020·Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract

Cutaneous sensation is vital to controlling our hands and upper limbs. It helps close the motor control loop by informing adjustments of grasping forces during object manipulations and provides much of the information the brain requires to perceive our limbs as a part of our bodies. This sensory information is absent to upper-limb prosthesis users. Although robotic prostheses are becoming increasingly sophisticated, the absence of feedback imposes a reliance on open-loop control and limits the functional potential as an integrated part of the body. Experimental systems to restore physiologically relevant sensory information to prosthesis users are beginning to emerge. However, the impact of their long-term use on functional abilities, body image, and neural adaptation processes remains unclear. Understanding these effects is essential to transition sensate prostheses from sophisticated assistive tools to integrated replacement limbs. We recruited three participants with high-level upper-limb amputation who previously received targeted reinnervation surgery. Each participant was fit with a neural-machine-interface prosthesis that allowed participants to operate their device by thinking about moving their missing limb. Additionally, we fit a sensory feedback system that allowed participants to experience touch to the prosthesis as touch on their missing limb. All three participants performed a long-term take-home trial. Two participants used their neural-machine-interface systems with touch feedback and one control participant used his prescribed, insensate prosthesis. A series of functional outcome metrics and psychophysical evaluations were performed using sensate neural-machine-interface prostheses before and after the take-home period to capture changes in functional abilities, limb embodiment, and neural adaptation. Our results demonstrated that the relationship between users and sensate neural-machine-interface prostheses is dynamic and changes with long-term use. The presence of touch sensation had a near-immediate impact on how the users operated their prostheses. In the multiple independent measures of users' functional abilities employed, we observed a spectrum of performance changes following long-term use. Furthermore, after the take-home period, participants more appropriately integrated their prostheses into their body images and psychophysical tests provided strong evidence that neural and cortical adaptation occurred.

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 · 10.3389/fnins.2020.00120

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Some neurotech devices are beginning to restore movement and sensation in people with missing or damaged limbs, spinal cord severation, or sensory loss/impairments.

    “Some neurotech devices are beginning to restore movement and sensation in people with missing or damaged limbs; 38 spinal cord severation; 14 or those with sensory loss, impairments, or differences that individuals want to improve—for example, cochlear implants for deafness 7 or retinal implants for certain kinds of visual impairments. 5”

    From AI and Neurotechnology (2023) · cites this paper as [38]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Aimola Davies A. M. White R. C. (2013). A sensational illusion: vision-touch synaesthesia and the rubber hand paradigm. Cortex 49 806– 818. 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.01.007 22445446 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Antfolk C. D’Alonzo M. Controzzi M. Lundborg G. Rosen B. Sebelius F. (2013). Artificial redirection of sensation from prosthetic fingers to the phantom hand map on transradial amputees: vibrotactile versus mechanotactile sensory feedback. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 21 112– 120. 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2217989 23033439 · DOI
  3. Beckler D. T. Thumser Z. C. Schofield J. S. Marasco P. D. (2019). Using sensory discrimination in a foraging-style task to evaluate human upper-limb sensorimotor performance. Sci. Rep. 9: 5806. 10.1038/s41598-019-42086-0 30967581 PMC6456599 · DOI
  4. Belter J. T. Segil J. L. Dollar A. M. Weir R. F. (2013). Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a review. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 50 599– 618. 10.1682/JRRD.2011.10.0188 24013909 · DOI
  5. Boccia M. Di Vita A. Palermo L. Nemmi F. Traballesi M. Brunelli S. (2019). Neural modifications in lower limb amputation: an fMRI study on action and non-action oriented body representations. Brain Imaging Behav. 1– 10. 10.1007/s11682-019-00142-3 [Epub ahead of print]. 31214871 · DOI
  6. Botan V. Fan S. Critchley H. Ward J. (2018). Atypical susceptibility to the rubber hand illusion linked to sensory-localised vicarious pain perception. Conscious. Cogn. 60 62– 71. 10.1016/j.concog.2018.02.010 29529588 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cipriani C. Segil J. L. Clemente F. Richard R. F. Edin B. (2014). Humans can integrate feedback of discrete events in their sensorimotor control of a robotic hand. Exp. Brain Res. 232 3421– 3429. 10.1007/s00221-014-4024-8 24992899 PMC4666528 · DOI
  8. Cohen L. G. Bandinelli S. Findley T. W. Hallett M. (1991). Motor reorganization after upper limb amputation in man: a study with focal magnetic stimulation. Brain 114 615– 627. 10.1093/brain/114.1.615 2004259 · DOI
  9. De Nunzio A. M. Dosen S. Lemling S. Markovic M. Schweisfurth M. A. Ge N. (2017). Tactile feedback is an effective instrument for the training of grasping with a prosthesis at low- and medium-force levels. Exp. Brain Res. 235 2547– 2559. 10.1007/s00221-017-4991-7 28550423 PMC5502062 · DOI
  10. Downey J. E. Weiss J. M. Flesher S. N. Thumser Z. C. Marasco P. D. Boninger M. L. (2018). Implicit grasp force representation in human motor cortical recordings. Front. Neurosci. 12: 801. 10.3389/fnins.2018.00801 30429772 PMC6220062 · DOI
  11. Dumanian G. A. Ko J. H. O’Shaughnessy K. D. Kim P. S. Wilson C. J. Kuiken T. A. (2009). Targeted reinnervation for transhumeral amputees: current surgical technique and update on results. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 124 863– 869. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b038c9 19730305 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Flor H. Elbert T. Knecht S. Wienbruch C. Pantev C. Birbaumer N. (1995). Phantom-limb pain as a perceptual correlate of cortical reorganization following arm amputation. Nature 375 482– 484. 10.1038/375482a0 7777055 · DOI
  13. Hasson C. J. Manczurowsky J. (2015). Effects of kinematic vibrotactile feedback on learning to control a virtual prosthetic arm. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 12:31. 10.1186/s12984-015-0025-5 25879430 PMC4391578 · DOI
  14. Hebert J. S. Chan K. M. Dawson M. R. (2016). Cutaneous sensory outcomes from three transhumeral targeted reinnervation cases. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 40 303– 310. 10.1177/0309364616633919 26932982 · DOI
  15. Hebert J. S. Olson J. L. Morhart M. J. Dawson M. R. Marasco P. D. Kuiken T. A. (2014). Novel targeted sensory reinnervation technique to restore functional hand sensation after transhumeral amputation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22 765– 773. 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2294907 24760915 · DOI
  16. Heed T. Azañón E. (2014). Using time to investigate space: a review of tactile temporal order judgments as a window onto spatial processing in touch. Front. Psychol. 5: 76. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00076 24596561 PMC3925972 · DOI
  17. Hiremath S. V. Tyler-Kabara E. C. Wheeler J. J. Moran D. W. Gaunt R. A. Collinger J. L. (2017). Human perception of electrical stimulation on the surface of somatosensory cortex. PLoS One 12: e0176020. 10.1371/journal.pone.0176020 28489913 PMC5425101 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Johansson R. S. (1996). “ Sensory and memory information in the control of dexterous manipulation,” in Neural Bases of Motor Behaviour, eds Lacquaniti F. Viviani P. (Dordrecht: Springer), 205– 260. 10.1007/978-94-017-2403-6_10 · DOI
  19. Kalckert A. Ehrsson H. H. (2012). Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: a dissociation of ownership and agency. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6: 40. 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00040 22435056 PMC3303087 · DOI
  20. Keetels M. Vroomen J. (2012). “ Perception of synchrony between the senses,” in The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes, eds Murray M. M. Wallace M. T. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press). 22593865
  21. Kim K. Colgate J. E. Santos-Munne J. J. Makhlin A. Peshkin M. A. (2010). On the design of miniature haptic devices for upper extremity prosthetics. IEEE ASME Trans. Mechatron. 15 27– 39. 10.1109/TMECH.2009.2013944 · DOI
  22. Kuiken T. A. Dumanian G. A. Lipschutz R. D. Miller L. A. Stubblefield K. A. (2004). The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 28 245– 253. 10.3109/03093640409167756 15658637 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kuiken T. A. Marasco P. D. Lock B. A. Harden R. N. Dewald J. P. A. (2007a). Redirection of cutaneous sensation from the hand to the chest skin of human amputees with targeted reinnervation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104 20061– 20066. 10.1073/pnas.0706525104 18048339 PMC2148422 · DOI
  24. Kuiken T. A. Miller L. A. Lipschutz R. D. Stubblefield K. Marasco P. D. Zhou P. (2007b). Targeted reinnervation for enhanced prosthetic arm function in a woman with a proximal amputation: a case study. Lancet 369 371– 380. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60193-7 17276777 · DOI
  25. Lotze M. Grodd W. Birbaumer N. Erb M. Huse E. Flor H. (1999). Does use of a myoelectric prosthesis prevent cortical reorganization and phantom limb pain? Nat. Neurosci. 2 501– 502. 10.1038/9145 10448212 · DOI
  26. Makin T. R. Scholz J. Filippini N. Henderson Slater D. Tracey I. Johansen-Berg H. (2013). Phantom pain is associated with preserved structure and function in the former hand area. Nat. Commun. 4 1570– 1578. 10.1038/ncomms2571 23463013 PMC3615341 · DOI
  27. Marasco P. D. Hebert J. S. Sensinger J. W. Shell C. E. Schofield J. S. Thumser Z. C. (2018). Illusory movement perception improves motor control for prosthetic hands. Sci. Transl. Med. 10: eaao6990. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aao6990 29540617 PMC5906050 · DOI
  28. Markovic M. Schweisfurth M. A. Engels L. F. Bentz T. Wüstefeld D. Farina D. (2018). The clinical relevance of advanced artificial feedback in the control of a multi-functional myoelectric prosthesis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 15: 28. 10.1186/s12984-018-0371-1 29580245 PMC5870217 · DOI
  29. Mathiowetz V. Volland G. Kashman N. Weber K. (1985). Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 39 386– 391. 10.5014/ajot.39.6.386 3160243 · DOI
  30. Miller L. A. Lipschutz R. D. Stubblefield K. A. Lock B. A. Huang H. Williams T. W. (2008). Control of a six degree of freedom prosthetic arm after targeted muscle reinnervation surgery. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 89 2057– 2065. 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.05.016 18996233 PMC3032984 · DOI
  31. Moseley G. L. Olthof N. Venema A. Don S. Wijers M. Gallace A. (2008). Psychologically induced cooling of a specific body part caused by the illusory ownership of an artificial counterpart. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 13169– 13173. 10.1073/pnas.0803768105 18725630 PMC2529116 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Paredes L. P. Dosen S. Rattay F. Graimann B. Farina D. (2015). The impact of the stimulation frequency on closed-loop control with electrotactile feedback. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 12:35. 10.1186/s12984-015-0022-8 25889752 PMC4403675 · DOI
  33. Rombokas E. Stepp C. E. Chang C. Malhotra M. Matsuoka Y. (2013). Vibrotactile sensory substitution for electromyographic control of object manipulation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 60 2226– 2232. 10.1109/TBME.2013.2252174 23508245 · DOI
  34. Rybarczyk B. Behel J. (2008). “ Limb loss and body image,” in Psychoprosthetics, eds Gallagher P. Desmond D. MacLachlan M. (London: Springer), 23– 31. 10.1007/978-1-84628-980-4_3 · DOI
  35. Schofield J. S. Evans K. R. Carey J. P. Hebert J. S. (2014). Applications of sensory feedback in motorized upper extremity prosthesis: a review. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 11 499– 511. 10.1586/17434440.2014.929496 24928327 · DOI
  36. Serino A. Akselrod M. Salomon R. Martuzzi R. Blefari M. L. Canzoneri E. (2017). Upper limb cortical maps in amputees with targeted muscle and sensory reinnervation. Brain 140 2993– 3011. 10.1093/brain/awx242 29088353 · DOI
  37. Sharma A. Torres-Moreno R. Zabjek K. Andrysek J. (2014). Toward an artificial sensory feedback system for prosthetic mobility rehabilitation: examination of sensorimotor responses. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 51 907– 918. 10.1682/JRRD.2013.07.0164 25356723 · DOI
  38. Siehlow K. (1951). The Vadux arm, a phantom-controlled electric prosthesis. Zentralbl. Chir. 76 1128– 1135. 14893894
  39. Tabot G. A. Dammann J. F. Berg J. A. Tenore F. V. Boback J. L. Vogelstein R. J. (2013). Restoring the sense of touch with a prosthetic hand through a brain interface. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 18279– 18284. 10.1073/pnas.1221113110 24127595 PMC3831459 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Thumser Z. C. Slifkin A. B. Beckler D. T. Marasco P. D. (2018). Fitts’ law in the control of isometric grip force with naturalistic targets. Front. Psychol. 9: 560. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00560 29773999 PMC5944157 · DOI
  41. Vroomen J. Keetels M. De Gelder B. Bertelson P. (2004). Recalibration of temporal order perception by exposure to audio-visual asynchrony. Cogn. Brain Res. 22 32– 35. 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.07.003 15561498 · DOI
  42. Witteveen H. J. B. Luft F. Rietman J. S. Veltink P. H. (2014). Stiffness feedback for myoelectric forearm prostheses using vibrotactile stimulation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22 53– 61. 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2267394 23799698 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schofield, J. S., Shell, C. E., Beckler, D. T., Thumser, Z. C., & Marasco, P. D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Marasco, Paul D.
Venue
Frontiers in Neuroscience
Published
2020-02-19
Volume
14
Pages
120-120
ISSN
1662-453X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3008026125
Cited by
68
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001-15-C-4015)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
upper limb amputation, tactile feedback, body image, neural adaptation, cortical adaptation, functional performance

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