Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Dec 24:7:2100113.
doi: 10.1109/JTEHM.2018.2883943. eCollection 2019.

EMG Pattern Recognition Control of the DEKA Arm: Impact on User Ratings of Satisfaction and Usability

Linda Resnik  1   2 , Frantzy Acluche  1 , Matt Borgia  1 , Gail Latlief  3 , Sam Phillips  4
Affiliations

EMG Pattern Recognition Control of the DEKA Arm: Impact on User Ratings of Satisfaction and Usability

Linda Resnik et al. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. .

Abstract

The DEKA Arm has multiple degrees of freedom which historically have been operated primarily by inertial measurement units (IMUs). However, the IMUs are not appropriate for all potential users; new control methods are needed. The purposes of this study were: 1) to describe usability and satisfaction of two controls methods-IMU and myoelectric pattern recognition (EMG-PR) controls-and 2) to compare ratings by control and amputation level. A total of 36 subjects with transradial (TR) or transhumeral (TH) amputation participated in the study. The subjects included 11 EMG-PR users (82% TR) and 25 IMU users (68% TR). The study consisted of in-laboratory training (Part A) and home use (Part B). The subjects were administered the Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience satisfaction scale and other usability and satisfaction measures. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared the differences by control type. The differences were compared for those who did and did not want a DEKA Arm. The preferences for features of the DEKA Arm were compared by control type. The comparisons revealed poorer ratings of skill, comfort, and weight among EMG-PR users. The TR amputees using IMUs rated usability more favorably. TH amputees rated usability similarly. The TR amputees using EMG-PR were less satisfied with weight, pinch grip, and wrist display, whereas the TH amputees were less satisfied with the full system, wires/cables, and battery. Usability and satisfaction declined after Part B for EMG-PR users. Overall, we found that the IMU users rated the DEKA Arm and the controls more favorably than the EMG-PR users. The findings indicate that the EMG-PR system we tested was less well accepted than the IMUs for control of the DEKA Arm.

Keywords: Patient satisfaction; pattern recognition; prosthesis; usability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Comparison of EMG-PR usability and satisfaction ratings for subjects who completed EOA and EOB ratings.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
TR Prosthesis users: comparison of preference for the DEKA Arm by control type.
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.
TH Prosthesis users: comparison of preference for the DEKA Arm by control type.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Resnik L., Klinger S. L., and Etter K., “The DEKA arm: Its features, functionality, and evolution during the veterans affairs study to optimize the DEKA arm,” Prosthetics Orthotics Int., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 492–504, 2014. - PubMed
    1. Resnik L., Klinger S. L., and Etter K., “User and clinician perspectives on DEKA arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA arm,” J. Rehabil. Res. Develop., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 27–38, 2014. - PubMed
    1. Resnik L., Klinger S. L., Etter K., and Fantini C., “Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: User experience,” Disab. Rehabil., Assist. Technol., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 318–329, 2013. - PubMed
    1. Resnik L. J., Borgia M. L., and Acluche F., “Perceptions of satisfaction, usability and desirability of the DEKA Arm before and after a trial of home use,” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 6, p. e0178640, 2017. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nielson J., Usability Engineering. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.