4.6 Article

A soft neuroprosthetic hand providing simultaneous myoelectric control and tactile feedback

Journal

NATURE BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 589-598

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41551-021-00767-0

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A soft and lightweight neuroprosthetic hand that offers simultaneous myoelectric control and tactile feedback outperformed a conventional rigid neuroprosthetic hand in speed and dexterity. The soft neuroprosthetic hand has the potential to help individuals with limb loss regain control and touch sensation.
A soft and lightweight neuroprosthetic hand that offers simultaneous myoelectric control and tactile feedback outperformed a conventional rigid neuroprosthetic hand in speed and dexterity. Neuroprosthetic hands are typically heavy (over 400 g) and expensive (more than US$10,000), and lack the compliance and tactile feedback of human hands. Here, we report the design, fabrication and performance of a soft, low-cost and lightweight (292 g) neuroprosthetic hand that provides simultaneous myoelectric control and tactile feedback. The neuroprosthesis has six active degrees of freedom under pneumatic actuation, can be controlled through the input from four electromyography sensors that measure surface signals from residual forearm muscles, and integrates five elastomeric capacitive sensors on the fingertips to measure touch pressure so as to enable tactile feedback by eliciting electrical stimulation on the skin of the residual limb. In a set of standardized tests performed by two individuals with transradial amputations, we show that the soft neuroprosthetic hand outperforms a conventional rigid neuroprosthetic hand in speed and dexterity. We also show that one individual with a transradial amputation wearing the soft neuroprosthetic hand can regain primitive touch sensation and real-time closed-loop control.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available