Evaluation of Computer-Based Target Achievement Tests for Myoelectric Control

November 30, 2017

Jacob GusmanEnzo MastinuMax Ortiz-Catalán

Early Access Note:
Early Access articles are new content made available in advance of the final electronic or print versions and result from IEEE’s Preprint or Rapid Post processes. Preprint articles are peer-reviewed but not fully edited. Rapid Post articles are peer-reviewed and edited but not paginated. Both these types of Early Access articles are fully citable from the moment they appear in IEEE Xplore.

Abstract

Evaluation of Computer-Based Target Achievement Tests for Myoelectric Control

Real-time evaluation of novel prosthetic control schemes is critical for translational research on artificial limbs. Recently, two computer-based, real-time evaluation tools, the Target Achievement Control (TAC) test, and the Fitts’ Law Test (FLT), have been proposed to assess real-time controllability. Whereas TAC tests provides an anthropomorphic visual representation of the limb at the cost of confusing visual feedback, FLT clarifies the current and target locations by simplified non-anthropomorphic representations. Here, we investigated these two approaches and quantified differences in common performance metrics that can result from the chosen method of visual feedback. Ten able-bodied and one amputee subject performed target achievement tasks corresponding to the FLT and TAC test with equivalent indices of difficulty. Able-bodied subjects exhibited significantly (p <0.05) better completion rate, path efficiency, and overshoot when performing the FLT, although no significant difference was seen in throughput performance. The amputee subject showed significantly better performance in overshoot at the FLT, but showed no significant difference in completion rate, path efficiency, and throughput. Results from the FLT showed a strong linear relationship between movement time (MT) and index of difficulty (ID) (R2 = 0.96), whereas TAC test results showed no apparent linear relationship (R2 = 0.19). These results suggest that in relatively similar conditions, the confusing location of virtual limb representation used in the TAC test contributed to poorer performance. Establishing an understanding of the biases of various evaluation protocols is critical to the translation of research into clinical practice.

READ FULL ARTICLE ON IEEE XPLORE

Login

New Here? Sign Up

Looking for increased exposure in the field of biomedical engineering? EMBS offers journals, conferences and a community for biomedical engineers. Membership includes PULSE Magazine.

Join EMBS