U.S. patent application number 14/104445 was filed with the patent office on 2014-04-10 for systems and method for volitional control of jointed mechanical device based on surface electromyography.
The applicant listed for this patent is VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY. Invention is credited to Michael Goldfarb, Kevin Ha, Huseyin Atakan Varol.
Application Number | 20140100667 14/104445 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 44357990 |
Filed Date | 2014-04-10 |
United States Patent
Application |
20140100667 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Goldfarb; Michael ; et
al. |
April 10, 2014 |
SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR VOLITIONAL CONTROL OF JOINTED MECHANICAL
DEVICE BASED ON SURFACE ELECTROMYOGRAPHY
Abstract
Systems and methods for controlling a weight bearing member
having at least one powered joint are provided. A system includes a
velocity reference module for receiving myoelectric control signals
from a user during a non-weight bearing mode for the powered joint
and generating a velocity reference for the powered joint based on
the myoelectric control signals. The system further includes a
volitional impedance module for generating a torque control signal
for actuating the powered joint based at least on the velocity
reference.
Inventors: |
Goldfarb; Michael;
(Franklin, TN) ; Varol; Huseyin Atakan; (Astana,
KZ) ; Ha; Kevin; (Nashville, TN) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY |
Nashville |
TN |
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
44357990 |
Appl. No.: |
14/104445 |
Filed: |
December 12, 2013 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
13150773 |
Jun 1, 2011 |
8623098 |
|
|
14104445 |
|
|
|
|
61360676 |
Jul 1, 2010 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
623/25 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A61F 5/01 20130101; A61F
2002/704 20130101; A61F 2/6607 20130101; A61F 2002/764 20130101;
A61F 2/72 20130101; A61F 2002/6827 20130101; A61F 2002/701
20130101; A61F 2002/7615 20130101; A61F 2/64 20130101; A61F 2/60
20130101; A61B 5/04888 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
623/25 |
International
Class: |
A61F 2/72 20060101
A61F002/72 |
Goverment Interests
STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH
[0002] This invention was made with U.S. government support under
grant number NIH RO1EB005684. MG which was awarded by the National
Institutes of Health. The U.S. government has certain rights in the
invention.
Claims
1-10. (canceled)
11. A myoelectric controller for a weight bearing member having a
plurality of powered joints, comprising: a non-transitory
computer-readable medium; a velocity reference module stored in the
computer-readable medium and configured for receiving myoelectric
control signals from a user during a non-weight bearing mode for
the plurality of powered joints and generating a velocity reference
for an active one of the plurality of powered joints based on the
myoelectric control signals; a volitional impedance module stored
in the computer-readable medium and configured for generating a
torque control signal for actuating the active one of the plurality
of powered joints based at least on the velocity reference; and a
selector module stored in the computer-readable medium and
configured for alternating the active one of the plurality of
powered joints when the myoelectric signals indicate a
co-contraction.
12. The myoelectric controller of claim 11, wherein the selector
module alternates the active one of the plurality of powered joints
when the myoelectric control signals indicating a co-contraction
exceed a pre-determined threshold.
13. The myoelectric controller of claim 11, wherein the selector
module is further configured for generating, after the alternating,
a signal for notifying the user as to which of the plurality of
powered joints is active.
14. A method for controlling at least one powered joint in a weight
bearing member, comprising: receiving myoelectric control signals
from a user during a non-weight bearing mode for the at least one
powered joint; generating a velocity reference for the at least one
powered joint based on the myoelectric control signals; and
generating a torque control signal for actuating the at least one
powered joint based at least on the velocity reference.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the torque control signal is
generated using a model based on the behavior of a spring and
dashpot element.
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the velocity reference is
further based on an intent of the user determined based on the
myoelectric control signals.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the intent is determined based
on one of quadratic discriminant analysis of the myoelectric
control signals and linear discriminant analysis of the myoelectric
control signals.
18. The method of claim 14, wherein the velocity reference is
generated based on a principal component analysis of the
myoelectric control signals.
19-20. (canceled)
21. The method of claim 14, wherein the torque control signal is
generated based on an equilibrium point derived from the velocity
reference.
22. The method of claim 21, further comprising determining the
equilibrium point based at least one of the velocity reference or
an initial angle of the at least one powered joint.
23. The method of claim 14, wherein the at least one at least one
powered joint comprises a plurality of powered joints, and further
comprising alternating an active one of the plurality of powered
joints when the myoelectric control signals indicate a
co-contraction.
24-25. (canceled)
26. A jointed mechanical device, comprising: a weight bearing
member comprising at least one powered joint; and a controller for
actuating the at least one powered joint, wherein the controller is
configured for actuating the at least one powered joint in at least
one of a semi-autonomous weight bearing `mode or a non-weight
bearing mode, the actuating of the at least one powered joint
responsive to a myoelectric control signals.
27. The jointed mechanical device of claim 26, wherein the
controller generates a torque control signal for actuating the at
least one powered joint during the non-weight bearing mode using a
model based on a behavior of a spring and dashpot element and a
velocity reference.
28. The jointed mechanical device of claim 26, wherein the
controller receives raw myoelectric signals from a user and
processes the raw myoelectric signals to yield the myoelectric
control signals.
29. The jointed mechanical device of claim 26, wherein the weight
bearing member comprises one of a limb prosthesis and a limb
orthosis,
30. The jointed mechanical device of claim 26, wherein the weight
bearing member comprises a lower limb prosthesis, and wherein the
at least one joint comprises at least one of a knee joint or an
ankle joint.
31. The jointed mechanical device of claim 26, wherein the
non-weight bearing mode comprises sitting or non-weight bearing
standing.
32. The jointed mechanical device of claim 26, wherein the weight
bearing member comprises a plurality of powered joints, wherein the
controller further comprises a selector configured for alternating
between the plurality of powered joints if the myoelectric control
signals exceed a pre-determined threshold.
33. The jointed mechanical device of claim 32, further comprising
at least one feedback device for notifying a user as to which of
the plurality of powered joints is currently selected.
34-36. (canceled)
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] This application claims the benefit of Provisional
Application Ser. No. 61/360,676 entitled "VOLITIONAL CONTROL OF
PROSTHETIC AND ORTHOTIC LOWER LIMB DEVICES USING MYOELECTRIC
SIGNALS", filed Jul. 1, 2010, which is herein incorporated by
reference in its entirety.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0003] The present invention relates to control of jointed
mechanical devices, and more specifically to systems and methods
for controlling jointed mechanical devices based on surface
electromyography.
BACKGROUND
[0004] Although prosthetic knee joints for transfemoral prostheses
have traditionally been energetically passive devices, powered,
semi-autonomous knee joints have recently started to emerge in the
research community and on the commercial market. Typically, passive
knee prostheses can only react to mechanical energy imparted by the
amputee, while powered knee prostheses have the ability to act
independently of mechanical energy from the user. As such, the
nature of the user communication with the powered prosthesis and
control of the powered prosthesis is substantially different from
the control of a traditional, energetically passive prosthesis.
[0005] Various methods have been proposed for the control of
powered knee prostheses. These approaches typically utilize
instrumentation on at least one of the prosthesis or a sound leg.
Such instrumentation can include inertial measurement sensors
(accelerometers and/or gyroscopes) at the foot, shank or thigh of
the prosthesis and/or sound side. Additionally, joint angular
position, velocity and torque sensors for ankle, knee and hip
joints of the prosthesis and/or sound side can also be used as
instrumentation for prosthesis control. Further, ground force
detecting load cells or load switches can also be used to detect
events such as heel strike or toe-off. This instrumentation is used
to form knee joint angle trajectories or impedances for the powered
knee prosthesis during activities involving the prosthesis. For
example, while standing, walking, or transitioning between sitting
and standing.
[0006] In general, activities such as standing, walking, or
transitioning between sitting and standing all involve physical
input and/or energy exchange between the residual limb and
prosthesis. Therefore, most conventional methods rely on some form
of physical input from the user for communication with the powered
knee prosthesis. That is, although the user need not provide the
energy for movement, as is the case with traditional dissipative
knee prostheses, the user must still provide some physical input
that can be measured by instrumentation on the prosthesis and/or
sound leg. Such physical inputs include measuring weight bearing on
the prosthesis, torque and/or acceleration from the affected-side
hip joint, movement of the sound-side leg, to name a few.
[0007] An important class of movement, however, which does not
involve any significant physical input from the user, is the task
of non-weight-bearing or volitional control of knee movement while
sitting or standing. That is, people regularly shift their body
while sitting, which involves significant movement of the knee
joints. Such movement has both physiological and practical
purposes. Regarding the former, weight shifting during sitting is
known to play an important role in ensuring healthy circulation of
blood in weight-bearing tissues during sitting. Regarding the
latter, sitting in confined areas, such as in automobiles,
airplanes, theatres, and classrooms, often requires shifting of
body position (particularly of the knee joints) in order to
accommodate a particular ergonomic space and/or the movement of
other individuals into or out of that space. Such movement is
referred to herein as volitional control of the knee joint during
non-weight-bearing activity. Note that such volitional control is
also useful in non-weight-bearing standing, such as when flexing
the knee to look at the bottom of a shoe, or when placing the foot
on an elevated surface (such as a chair) to tie or untie, or don or
doff a shoe. In the case of a traditional, energetically passive
prosthesis, an amputee typically achieves "volitional" control
functionality by manipulating the prosthetic knee leg with his or
her hands.
SUMMARY
[0008] The various embodiments present systems and methods for the
volitional control of the knee joint during non-weight-bearing
activity which utilizes a pair of surface electromyogram (EMG)
electrodes (on the ventral and dorsal aspects of the thigh,
respectively), such as that integrated into the amputee's socket
interface. Such an approach can be integrated with the
impedance-based weight-bearing controllers for standing, walking,
and transitioning between sitting and standing in order to provide
volitional control of the knee joint during non-weight-bearing
activity.
[0009] Researchers have investigated the use of surface EMG for the
control of lower limb prostheses and orthoses. In the case of
passive knee prostheses. Some groups have developed a prosthesis
with an electrically activated knee flexion lock, and used surface
EMG from the residual limb of a transfemoral amputee to trigger the
engagement and disengagement of the lock. Other groups developed a
computer-controllable passive knee prosthesis based on an
electrically modulated brake, and utilized surface EMG from three
sites on the residual limb of a transfemoral amputee for gait mode
recognition, which in turn was used to switch the prosthesis into
the appropriate gait mode. Yet other groups utilized surface EMG
from multiple electrodes on transfemoral amputees to classify
movement intents while walking. With regard to using EMG for the
real-time control of a powered knee prosthesis, one group has
attempted to use surface EMG from the quadriceps and hamstrings to
control the motion of a hydraulically actuated powered knee
prosthesis during walking. However, this group concluded that use
of such an approach during gait would be challenging, due in part
to difficulty in obtaining reliable EMG measurement, "due to noise
pick up and movement artifact." Other groups have used surface EMG
measured from the lower leg for the control of powered ankle joints
in transtibial prostheses, or powered joints in ankle-foot-orthoses
(AFOs). For example, one group has proposed the use of EMG measured
from the lower leg to control the assistive pressure in a
pneumatically actuated AFO. Another group has proposed a control
system for an assistive exoskeleton with powered hip and knee
joints, in which the assistive torque from the exoskeleton is
proportional to the measured EMG from the associated flexion or
extension muscle group. However, the methods and techniques
described above do not disclose utilizing EMG for the volitional
control of knee or ankle joint motion in a powered prostheses.
[0010] In contrast, the various embodiments of the invention
concern systems and methods for controlling jointed mechanical
devices, such as prostheses and orthoses, based on surface
electromyography. In particular, providing volitional control of
powered joints. In a first embodiment, a myoelectric controller for
a weight bearing member having at least one powered joint is
provided. The myoelectric controller includes a velocity reference
module for receiving myoelectric control signals from a user during
a non-weight bearing mode for the powered joint and generating a
velocity reference for the powered joint based on the myoelectric
control signals. The controller further includes a volitional
impedance module for generating a torque control signal for
actuating the powered joint based at least on the velocity
reference.
[0011] In a second embodiment of the invention, a method for
controlling at least one powered joint in a weight bearing member
is provided. The method includes the step of receiving myoelectric
control signals from user during a non-weight bearing mode for the
powered joint. The method also includes generating a velocity
reference for the powered joint based on the myoelectric control
signals. The method further includes generating a torque control
signal for actuating the powered joint based at least on the
velocity reference.
[0012] In a third embodiment of the invention, a jointed mechanical
device is provided. The device includes a weight bearing member
comprising at least one powered joint. The device also includes a
controller for actuating the powered joint. In the device, the
controller is configured for actuating the joint in at least one of
a semi-autonomous weight bearing mode and a non-weight bearing mode
for actuating the powered joint responsive to myoelectric control
signals.
[0013] In a fourth embodiment of the invention, a computer-readable
medium is provided, storing instructions for controlling a
computing device to control a powered joint. The instructions
include instructions for receiving myoelectric control signals from
user during a non-weight bearing mode for the powered joint,
generating a velocity reference for the powered joint based on the
myoelectric control signals, and generating a torque control signal
for actuating the powered joint based at least on the velocity
reference.
[0014] Thus, a control approach is provided that not only provides
the above-mentioned benefits of volitional control for amputees,
but also provides such volitional control in a manner that the
trajectory tracking performance is close to that observed in intact
or sound joints.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0015] FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a myoelectric volitional
impedance controller for controlling a powered knee joint in
accordance with an embodiment.
[0016] FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a myoelectric volitional
impedance controller for controlling a powered knee joint and a
powered ankle joint in accordance with an embodiment.
[0017] FIG. 3A is an x-y plot of extension and flexion reference
signals for a first amputee subject showing classification using
quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) and linear discriminant
analysis (LDA) methods in accordance with the various
embodiments.
[0018] FIG. 3B is an x-y plot of extension and flexion reference
signals for a second amputee subject showing classification using
QDA and LDA methods in accordance with the various embodiments.
[0019] FIG. 3C is an x-y plot of extension and flexion reference
signals for a third amputee subject showing classification using
QDA and LDA methods in accordance with the various embodiments.
[0020] FIG. 4A is an x-y plot of actual measurements and PCA
projections of extension reference signals for the first amputee
subject in FIG. 3A.
[0021] FIG. 4B is an x-y plot of actual measurements and PCA
projections of flexion reference signals for the first amputee
subject in FIG. 3A.
[0022] FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration of an exemplary powered
transfemoral prosthesis that can be configured for using a control
system in accordance with the various embodiments.
[0023] FIGS. 6A-6D show x-y plots of EMG-controlled powered
prosthesis knee position for trajectories A-D, respectively, of the
third amputee subject in FIG. 3C.
[0024] FIG. 7A-7D show x-y plots of sound-side knee position for
trajectories A-D, respectively, of the third amputee subject in
FIG. 3C.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0025] The present invention is described with reference to the
attached figures, wherein like reference numerals are used
throughout the figures to designate similar or equivalent elements.
The figures are not drawn to scale and they are provided merely to
illustrate the instant invention. Several aspects of the invention
are described below with reference to example applications for
illustration. It should be understood that numerous specific
details, relationships, and methods are set forth to provide a full
understanding of the invention. One having ordinary skill in the
relevant art, however, will readily recognize that the invention
can be practiced without one or more of the specific details or
with other methods. In other instances, well-known structures or
operations are not shown in detail to avoid obscuring the
invention. The present invention is not limited by the illustrated
ordering of acts or events, as some acts may occur in different
orders and/or concurrently with other acts or events. Furthermore,
not all illustrated acts or events are required to implement a
methodology in accordance with the present invention.
[0026] As described above, in a traditional, energetically passive
prosthesis, an amputee can achieve volitional control functionality
by manipulating the prosthetic knee leg with his or her hands.
However, since a powered knee prosthesis has the capability to move
itself, such artificial manipulation should not be required for
volitional movement of the knee joint. Nonetheless, since such
volitional movements do not involve significant physical input from
the amputee, conventional control approaches do not provide an
effective means of communication with the prosthesis for this
purpose.
[0027] In view of the limitations of conventional control
approaches and conventional prostheses, the various embodiments
provide a new method for the volitional control of the knee joint
during non-weight-bearing activities. More generally, the various
embodiments provide systems and methods controlling jointed
mechanical devices, such as prostheses and orthoses, during
non-weight bearing activities based on a volitional impedance
control framework.
[0028] For example, in the case of a leg prosthesis, this allows a
transfemoral amputee to control the motion of a powered knee
prosthesis during non-weight-bearing activity (e.g., while
sitting.). The control is based on an impedance framework wherein
the joint exhibits programmable joint stiffness and damping
characteristics. Knee movement is provided by commanding the joint
stiffness equilibrium angle. The time rate of change of this angle
(which is the desired angular velocity set-point) is provided by
measurement of the surface EMG, using a pair of surface
electromyogram (EMG) electrodes. In one embodiment, the electrodes
can be on the ventral and dorsal aspects of the thigh. For example
these electrodes can be integrated into the amputee's socket
interface so as to measure the surface EMG of the hamstring and
quadriceps muscle groups. However, rather than directly associate
the hamstring EMG with knee flexion and the quadriceps with knee
extension, which would require the user to artificially isolate
contraction of these muscle groups, the various embodiments
incorporate a combination of pattern classification and principal
component projection to align the measured EMG with the user's
desire to flex or extend the knee joint. The resulting control
approach provides trajectory tracking performance close to that of
intact knee joints, thus providing an approach for effective
control of knee joint motion during non-weight-bearing activity.
Further, this approach can be integrated with existing
impedance-based weight-bearing controllers for standing, walking,
and transitioning between sitting and standing. For example, this
approach can be integrated into the controller described in U.S.
patent application Ser. No. 12/427,384 to Goldfarb et al, filed
Apr. 21, 2009, the contents of which are herein incorporated in
their entirety.
[0029] Although exemplary embodiments will be described primarily
with respect to providing volitional control for a prosthesis
including at least a powered knee, the various embodiments are not
limited in this regard. Rather, the framework described herein can
be used for volitional control of any type of powered joint in a
prosthesis or an orthosis.
[0030] The use of surface EMG for the control of lower limb
prostheses and orthoses has been widely investigated. In the case
of passive knee prostheses, one existing approach provides a
prosthesis with an electrically activated knee flexion lock that
uses surface EMG from the residual limb of a transfemoral amputee
to trigger the engagement and disengagement of the lock. A similar
approach includes a computer-controllable passive knee prosthesis
based on an electrically modulated brake, and utilizes surface EMG
from three sites on the residual limb of a transfemoral amputee for
gait mode recognition, which in turn was used to switch the
prosthesis into the appropriate gait mode. More recently, surface
EMG from multiple electrodes on transfemoral amputees has been
utilized to classify movement intents while walking. However, with
regard to using EMG for the real-time control of a powered knee
prosthesis, only limited investigation into the use of surface EMG
from the quadriceps and hamstrings to control the motion of a
hydraulically actuated powered knee prosthesis during walking has
occurred. Further, such research concluded that use of such an
approach during gait would be challenging, due in part to
difficulty in obtaining reliable EMG measurement, "due to noise
pick up and movement artifact."
[0031] Other conventional control methodologies using surface EMG
measured from the lower leg have been generally directed to the
control of powered ankle joints in transtibial prostheses or
control of powered joints in ankle-foot-orthoses (AFOs). With
regard to the former, one approach provides for using a real-time
state-based controller for the powered ankle based on physical
input (rather EMG input) from the user and which utilizes EMG
measured from the lower leg to switch between gait modes. With
regard to powered AFOs, one approach uses EMG measured from the
lower leg to control the assistive pressure in a pneumatically
actuated AFO. Additionally, a control system for an assistive
exoskeleton with powered hip and knee joints has been proposed, in
which the assistive torque from the exoskeleton is proportional to
the measured EMG from the associated flexion or extension muscle
group. However, none of these approaches utilize EMG for the
volitional control of knee joint motion in a powered knee
prosthesis.
[0032] Volitional Control of Powered Knee
[0033] A. Volitional Control Structure
[0034] In a first exemplary embodiment, a control framework is
provided for volitional control of the knee with a joint output
impedance similar to that of the native limb. As such, rather than
using the measured EMG to prescribe joint torque, angle, or angular
velocity, the presented framework utilizes measured EMG to
prescribe the angular velocity of an equilibrium point of joint
impedance that consists of the combination of a joint stiffness and
damping. In this manner, the knee moves to a desired position with
a joint output stiffness and damping prescribed by the controller,
thus presumably moving in a more natural manner (relative to a
high-output-impedance position controller), and resulting in a more
natural interaction between the user, prosthesis, and
environment.
[0035] The structure of the proposed volitional controller is shown
in FIG. 1. FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a myoelectric volitional
controller 100 for controlling a powered knee joint in a prosthesis
102 based on EMG signals from a user 104 in accordance with an
embodiment. In this controller, a real-time intent recognizer, such
as the one described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/427,384
to Goldfarb et al, filed Apr. 21, 2009, or in Varol, H. A., Sup,
F., and Goldfarb, M. Multiclass Real-Time Intent Recognition of a
Powered Lower Limb Prosthesis. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 742-751, 2009 would be used to
switch between this (volitional) controller and other
weight-bearing control structures.
[0036] With reference to FIG. 1, the controller 100 operates as
follows. First, during a non-weight bearing activity, based on an
intent recognizer (not shown), EMG signals (EMG.sub.1, EMG.sub.2)
are received by controller 100 from the residual limb of the user
104. Thereafter, a pre-processing module 106 processes the EMG
signals. The pre-processed signals are then used for generation of
reference velocity (i.e., the joint angular velocity reference,
.omega..sub.emg). As shown in FIG. 1, .omega..sub.emg is generated
by a velocity reference generation module 108 based on the
pre-processed the EMG signals, the current angle for the joint
(.theta..sub.k), the derivative or rate of change of angle for the
joint ({dot over (.theta.)}.sub.k), and the user's intent to flex
or extend the knee. The intent can be obtained from a flexing
extending classification module 110. Thereafter, an equilibrium
point joint angle {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.emg can be obtained from
.omega..sub.emg using conversion module 112. The equilibrium point
joint angle, .theta..sub.k, and {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.k can then
be used in a volitional impedance controller module 114 to generate
a joint torque command (.tau.) for the prosthesis 102 to cause
motion of the knee joint. Additionally, .theta..sub.k and {dot over
(.theta.)}.sub.k are updated based on the torque command. The
control process then repeats. It should be noted though that since
.theta..sub.k and {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.k are the measurements
of the knee angle and velocity of the prosthesis, the update is not
done computationally, rather it is a physical process. The
operation of these various modules is described below in greater
detail.
[0037] B. Volitional Impedance Controller
[0038] In the various embodiments, EMG is used to generate an
angular velocity command (as is commonly the case in upper
extremity myoelectric control) rather than a position command, so
that the user contracts the residual limb musculature only to move
the joint and can relax when maintaining any given knee joint
angle. Specifically, the joint torque command at controller module
114 can be given by a model mimicking the behavior of a spring and
dashpot element. For example, one model in accordance with the
various elements can be:
.tau.=k(.theta.-.theta..sub.emg)+b{dot over (.theta.)} (1)
where the equilibrium point .theta..sub.emg is given by module 112
using
.theta. emg = .theta. o + .intg. t .omega. emg t ( 2 )
##EQU00001##
where k is the prescribed joint stiffness, b is the prescribed
joint damping coefficient, .theta. is the knee joint angle, and
.theta..sub.o is the initial angle when the control system switches
to the volitional (non-weight bearing) controller and
.omega..sub.emg is the angular velocity reference generated from
the quadriceps and hamstring EMG, as described in the following
section.
[0039] C. Reference Velocity Generation
[0040] The controller module 114 utilizes the measured surface EMG
from the quadriceps and hamstring groups to generate a joint
angular velocity reference, .omega..sub.emg, to drive the joint
angular impedance equilibrium point, .theta..sub.emg, and thus to
drive the motion of the knee. One method for doing so at module 108
would be to use
.omega. emg = { k h e h if e h .gtoreq. e q - k q e q otherwise ( 3
) ##EQU00002##
where e.sub.h and e.sub.q represent the measured (i.e., rectified
and filtered) EMG from the hamstring and quadriceps muscles,
respectively, and k.sub.h and k.sub.g are simple gains. Equation
(3) also assumes that an appropriate dead-band is applied to the
measured EMG, to avoid "jitter" in the angular velocity reference
command. Equation (3) is similar to the method used for the control
of myoelectric upper extremity prostheses.
[0041] However, as shown below, use of equation (3) provided only
marginal performance in the proposed volitional controller.
Specifically, as described subsequently (and indicated in FIGS.
3A-3C), two of the three amputee subjects on which the approach was
implemented demonstrated a significant degree of co-contraction
when attempting to contract either the hamstrings or quadriceps in
an isolated manner. With sufficient training, these subjects could
possibly be trained to avoid co-contraction. Co-contraction,
however, is a natural neuromuscular response (particularly in the
lower limb musculature). As such, in an effort to render the
proposed controller as natural as possible, in the various
embodiments, the controller is trained to properly interpret
co-contraction, rather than train the subjects to avoid it.
Therefore, as indicated in the control structure of FIG. 1 and
described below, the controller 100 first utilizes pattern
classification to classify the user's intent with regard to flexion
or extension of the knee, then utilizes a projection operator to
extract the desired magnitude of the joint angular velocity
reference from the measured EMG data.
[0042] D. Flexion-Extension Classification
[0043] As described above, rather than train the subjects to avoid
co-contraction while commanding flexion or extension of the knee,
the various embodiments utilize a pattern classification approach
to distinguish user intent to flex or extend the knee. In one
embodiment, module 110 can be implemented using a quadratic
discriminant analysis (QDA) classifier to distinguish between the
user's intent to flex or extend. A linear discriminant analysis
(LDA) classifier can also applied to the classification problem in
other embodiments, although the QDA was chosen due to improved
classification accuracy (based on the mean accuracy obtained with a
five-fold cross-validation for each subject), and because the QDA
is not significantly more complex (or computationally expensive)
than the LDA classifier. Specifically, QDA uses the quadratic
decision boundary of the form
c.sub.1+c.sub.2e.sub.h+c.sub.3e.sub.q+c.sub.4e.sup.2.sub.h+c.sub.5e.sub.h-
e.sub.q+c.sub.6e.sup.2.sub.q=0 to classify the sample consisting of
the processed EMG data from the two channels, e.sub.h and e.sub.q,
to the extension (.omega..sub.E) and flexion (.omega..sub.F)
classes where the coefficients c.sub.i, i=1, 2, . . . , 6, are
generated during the training of the QDA classifier. Details of the
LDA and QDA methods can be found in several pattern classification
references. Further, this embodiment utilizes a database of EMG
(versus intent) data to parameterize the flexion/extension
classifier, as described below.
[0044] E. EMG Measurement and Preprocessing
[0045] In the various embodiments, the electrodes can be
implemented in various ways. For example, as described above,
surface EMG electrodes can be embedded into the prosthesis socket.
In another implementation, separate surface electrodes can be
placed on the amputee to acquire EMG signals from the residual
quadriceps and hamstring muscles of the amputee subjects. To
improve acquisition of such signals, the signals from each muscle
group can amplified, filtered, and/or rectified at module 106. In
other words, the EMG preprocessing attempts to discern an envelope
of the raw EMG signal.
[0046] In the various embodiments, each EMG signal is acquired from
a single bipolar electrode. Such signals are generally very small
in magnitude and can have both positive and negative values when
the muscle contracts. An instrumentation amplifier can then be used
to increase the voltage levels of these signals. Thereafter, high
pass filtering can be applied to remove the baseline noise and
rectification can be done to remove the negative values. Finally,
the signal can be low pass filtered to create an envelope of the
signal. This way, the muscle contraction EMG signals will be
converted to a unidirectional multilevel signal in expense of some
phase delay due to the filtering. In other words, the preprocessing
is done to convert the noisy raw EMG data to a less noisy form that
is more suitable for controls and pattern recognition.
[0047] For example, in one embodiment, the signal can be processed
using an instrumentation amplifier with a gain of 200 and filtered
using an analog second order low pass filter with 5 Hz cutoff
frequency. The filtered signals can then be digitized for use. For
example, using a computer running MATLAB Real Time Workshop with a
digital-to-analog converter card and operating at 1000 Hz sampling
frequency. The digital signals can then be further processed using
additional signal processing. For example, signals can be processed
using a first order high-pass filter with 20 Hz cutoff frequency, a
rectifier, and a first order low-pass filter with 2 Hz cutoff
frequency.
[0048] F. EMG Intent Database Generation
[0049] Classifier training database generation can be performed by
recording EMG data associated with an amputee. For example, in one
embodiment, a training database can be generated for an amputee by
recording 100 seconds of EMG data for knee flexion and 100 seconds
for knee extension. For ease of the subject, a one-minute rest in
between the recordings can be provided. Thus the entire training
session can be configured to last less than five minutes. To
generate a complete set of training data for each flexion/extension
class, each subject can be asked to visualize extending the knee on
the amputated side at 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent of full effort,
several times for durations ranging from 1 to 5 seconds, over the
total data collection period of 100 seconds at a 100 Hz sampling
frequency. The extension data can be recorded first, followed by a
rest period of approximately one minute, followed by the same
procedure for flexion data. All EMG data can be normalized into the
interval [0, 1]. The data can be additionally thresholded at 20%
maximum effort, such that samples in the interval [0, 0.2] are
effectively removed from the database and in order to mitigate
baseline EMG noise and muscular tonicity. Based on this thresholded
database, the QDA classifier can be parameterized to classify each
subject's preprocessed EMG as intent to either flex or extend the
knee joint.
[0050] G. Reference Velocity Magnitude
[0051] The QDA essentially provides a probabilistic optimal
separation boundary of the EMG data to the flexion and extension
classes. Within a given class (in this case flexion or extension),
the "magnitude" of the data is the projection along the principal
axis of that class. In the control approach described herein, this
projection can be generated via principal component analysis (PCA),
which essentially projects the two-dimensional EMG data along a
principal (either flexion or extension) axis. Using the data
belonging to each class, two 2.times.2 PCA projection matrices
W.sub.E and W.sub.F can be computed. In the real-time
implementation, one of these projection matrices can be used to
extract the "magnitude" information, based on the result of QDA
classification as follows:
[ x p x s ] T = { W E [ x h x q ] T if .omega. E W F [ x h x q ] T
if .omega. F ( 4 ) ##EQU00003##
[0052] The magnitude of the angular velocity reference for the
joint impedance set-point, .omega..sub.emg, can therefore be the
PCA-based projection of the two-dimensional EMG data along the
principal axis of either the flexion or extension data. Details of
PCA can be found in several references. The projected EMG data can
be scaled between zero and maximum reference velocity to generate
the desired angular velocity reference. The maximum reference
velocity can be determined as the maximum reasonable angular
velocity command for volitional control of the knee joint.
[0053] In contrast with (3), which obtains a reference angular
velocity (for the volitional control impedance set-point) by
projecting data along a hamstring/quadriceps set of measurement
axes, the approach combining QDA classification with PCA projection
of the two-dimensional EMG data establishes a probabilistically
optimal linear transformation from a hamstring/quadriceps set of
axes to a flexion/extension set of axes (based on the training
dataset). As such, the subject need not be trained to isolate the
contraction of individual muscle groups, but rather is free to
co-contract the hamstring and quadriceps groups in a natural manner
when intending knee flexion or extension.
[0054] II. Volitional Control of Powered Knee and Powered Ankle
[0055] A. Volitional Control Structure
[0056] Although the volitional control structure above describes
how to provide volitional control of a powered knee joint,
volitional control of a powered knee and a powered joint is
desirable in many circumstances. In particular, volitional control
of both the knee and ankle allows more natural motion and provides
the user the option to manipulate the foot. Accordingly, in some
embodiments, a control framework can be provided that is intended
to provide volitional control of both the knee and ankle joints
with a joint output impedance similar to that of the native limb.
As such, rather than using the measured EMG solely to prescribe
joint torque, angle, or angular velocity, the presented framework
can utilize measured EMG to prescribe the angular velocity of an
equilibrium point of joint impedance that consists of the
combination of a joint stiffness and damping. In this manner, the
knee can move to a desired position with a joint output stiffness
and damping prescribed by the controller, thus presumably moving in
a more natural manner (relative to a high-output-impedance position
controller), and resulting in a more natural interaction between
the user, prosthesis, and environment.
[0057] The structure of the volitional controller for knee and
ankle joints is shown in FIG. 2. FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a
myoelectric volitional controller 200 for controlling a prosthesis
202 having powered knee joint or a powered ankle joint in
accordance with an embodiment. In many respects, the controller 200
operates in a substantially similar fashion to controller 100 in
FIG. 1. That is, during a non-weight bearing activity, based on an
intent recognizer (not shown), EMG signals (EMG.sub.1, EMG.sub.2)
are received by controller 200 from the residual limb of the user
204. Thereafter, a pre-processing module 206 processes the EMG
signals. The pre-processed signals are then used for generation of
reference velocities for the knee or the ankle joints (i.e., one of
joint angular velocity references, .omega..sub.knee.sub.--.sub.emg
and .omega..sub.ankle.sub.--.sub.emg, respectively). As shown in
FIG. 2, the one of .omega..sub.knee.sub.--.sub.emg and
.omega..sub.ankle.sub.--.sub.emg is generated by a velocity
reference generation module 208 based on the pre-processed EMG
signals, the user's intent to flex or extend the knee, a user
selection of a joint, and a corresponding current angle for the
joint to be controlled (.theta..sub.kne or .theta..sub.ank), the
derivative or rate of change of angle for the joint to be
controlled ({dot over (.theta.)}.sub.kne or {dot over
(.theta.)}.sub.ank). The intent can be obtained from a flexing
extending classification module 210. The user selection can be
based on detection of co-contraction or a "twitch" using module
211. Thereafter, an equilibrium point joint angle for the one of
the knee (.theta..sub.kne.sub.--.sub.emg) or the ankle
(.theta..sub.ank.sub.--.sub.emg) can be obtained from a
corresponding one of .theta..sub.knee.sub.--.sub.emg and
.omega..sub.ankle.sub.--.sub.emg using conversion module 212. The
one equilibrium point joint angle can then be used in a volitional
impedance controller module 214 to generate a joint torque command
(.tau.) for the prosthesis 102 to cause motion of the knee or ankle
joint. Additionally, the resulting values for .theta..sub.kne,
.theta..sub.ank, {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.ank are updated. The
control process then repeats. The operation of these various
modules is described below in greater above and below, as
necessary.
[0058] B. Volitional Impedance Controller
[0059] Controller module 214 here operates in a manner
substantially similar to that of controller module 114 in FIG. 1.
Again, it is noted that the EMG is used to generate an angular
velocity command (as is commonly the case in upper extremity
myoelectric control) rather than a position command, so that the
user contracts the residual limb musculature only to move the joint
and can relax when maintaining any given knee joint angle.
Specifically, the joint torque command at controller module 214 is
given by:
.tau..sub.kne=k.sub.kne(.theta..sub.kne-.theta..sub.emg.sub.--.sub.kne)+-
b.sub.kne{dot over (.theta.)}.sub.kne
.tau..sub.ank=k.sub.ank(.theta..sub.ank-.theta..sub.emg.sub.--.sub.ank)+-
b.sub.ank{dot over (.theta.)}.sub.ank (5)
where the knee and ankle equilibrium points
.theta..sub.kne.sub.--.sub.emg and .theta..sub.ank.sub.--.sub.emg
are given by
.theta. kne_emg = .theta. o_kne + .intg. t .omega. kne_emg t
.theta. ank _emg = .theta. o_ank + .intg. t .omega. ank _emg t ( 6
) ##EQU00004##
where k.sub.kne and k.sub.ank are the prescribed joint stiffnesses,
b.sub.kne and b.sub.ank are the prescribed joint damping
coefficient, .theta..sub.kne and .theta..sub.ank are the knee and
ankle joint angles, and .theta..sub.o.sub.--.sub.kne and
.theta..sub.o.sub.--.sub.ank are the initial knee and ankle angles
when the control system switches to the volitional (non-weight
bearing) controller. .omega..sub.kne.sub.--.sub.emg and
.omega..sub.ank.sub.--.sub.emg are the knee and ankle angular
velocity references generated from the quadriceps and hamstring
EMG, as described in the following section.
[0060] C. Active Joint Selection Using Twitch
[0061] In this embodiment, two unidirectional EMG channels are used
to generate two bidirectional joint velocity references, one for
the ankle joint and one for the knee joint of the prosthesis. In
one embodiment, one bidirectional signal for one of the joints is
generated at a single instant. In order to achieve this, a short
duration co-contraction (twitch) of the both EMG electrode sites
can be utilized to select the active joint. A twitch can be
detected when the filtered and rectified EMG signals on both
channels exceed a threshold for a short duration of time. Once a
twitch is detected the active joint of the prosthesis can be
toggled. One of the two tactors (e.g. cellphone vibration motor) on
the residual limb (or in the socket as shown in FIG. 5 below) can
then be activated for a short duration to notify the user which
joint is active.
[0062] D. Flexion-Extension Classification
[0063] Once the active joint is selected, the user intent to flex
or extend can be detected using a pattern classification algorithm
in module 210, as described above with respect to module 110 in
FIG. 1. For example, such algorithms can include linear
discriminant analysis (LDA), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA),
support vector machines (SVM) or artificial neural networks (ANN).
In order to generate the flexion extension classification
boundaries (or functions) a database of different intensity flexion
and extension EMG data from hamstring and quadriceps muscles need
to be collected, as described above. This data can then be used to
train the pattern classifiers.
[0064] D. Reference Velocity Magnitude
[0065] Once the user intent to flex and extend is inferred, the
joint velocity reference magnitude can be obtained at module 208 as
a function of the filtered EMG signals. One possible way to
generate the velocity references might be to use principal
component analysis to project the two dimensional filtered EMG
signals to the one dimensional principal component.
[0066] III. Experimental Implementation
[0067] A. EMG-Based Reference Velocity Generation
[0068] The proposed volitional knee joint controller of FIG. 1 was
implemented on three transfemoral amputee subjects. The subjects
were all male, between the ages of 20 and 60, and between 3 months
and 4 years post amputation. Two of the subjects were unilateral
transfemoral amputees, while one subject (subject 3) was a
bilateral amputee, with a transfemoral amputation on one leg and a
transtibial on the other. In all cases, all subjects were
characterized by a prosthetic knee on one limb and an intact knee
on the other.
[0069] FIGS. 3A-3C shows the EMG intent databases corresponding to
each subject. In particular, FIG. 3A is an x-y plot of extension
and flexion reference signals for a first amputee subject (subject
1) showing classification using QDA and LDA methods in accordance
with the various embodiments. FIG. 3B is an x-y plot of extension
and flexion reference signals for a second amputee subject (subject
2) showing classification using QDA and LDA methods in accordance
with the various embodiments. FIG. 3C is an x-y plot of extension
and flexion reference signals for a third amputee subject (subject
3) showing classification using QDA and LDA methods in accordance
with the various embodiments.
[0070] These databases, as described above, correspond to 100
seconds of flexion data at various degrees of (muscular) effort,
and 100 seconds of extension data, also at various degrees of
effort. Note that the x.sub.q axis represents the measured,
preprocessed, normalized, and thresholded EMG for the quadriceps
group, while the x.sub.h axis represents the EMG measured for the
hamstring group. As seen in FIGS. 3A-3C, two of the three subjects
(subjects 1 and 3) demonstrated a significant amount of muscular
co-contraction when intending volitional movement of the prosthetic
knee. Interestingly, subject 1 primarily demonstrated significant
co-contraction during intent to extend the knee, while subject 3
primarily demonstrated significant co-contraction during intent to
flex the knee. For all subjects, the LDA and QDA boundaries between
classes along with the pseudo-classification boundary described by
(3) are shown in the figures. Recall that, based on a five-fold
cross-validation of classification accuracy, QDA classification in
general provided higher classification accuracies, and therefore
was used in the control experiments to classify intent to flex or
extend the knee. Specifically, the mean accuracies of the
classifiers over 5 CV-fold for each of the three subjects are 0.99,
0.80 and 0.86 for the LDA and 1.0, 0.86 and 0.90 for the QDA. Note
that, particularly in the cases of subjects 1 and 3, the simple
thresholding approach (described by (3)) entails a considerable
amount of erroneous "classification" of intent, even in the case of
large amplitude EMG (x.sub.i>0.3). In contrast, the QDA
classification boundaries entail little to no classification error,
particularly in large amplitude EMG.
[0071] Once intent to flex or extend the knee is known, the
magnitude of the angular velocity for the impedance set-point is
obtained by projecting the corresponding data point onto its
principal axis via PCA. A representative example of the
corresponding PCA projections for subject 1 is shown in FIGS. 4A
and 4B. FIG. 4A is an x-y plot of actual measurements and PCA
projections of extension reference signals for the first amputee
subject in FIG. 3A. FIG. 4B is an x-y plot of actual measurements
and PCA projections of flexion reference signals for the first
amputee subject in FIG. 3A. In the figures, the x.sub.p axis
corresponds to the PCA projection of the flexion and extension data
along the principal component of that data. As such, the angular
velocity for the impedance set-point of the volitional knee joint
controller can be given by:
.omega. emg = { 0 if .omega. F and ( x P < .gamma. ) .alpha. ( x
p - .gamma. 1 - .gamma. ) if .omega. F and ( x P .gtoreq. .gamma. )
0 if .omega. E and ( x P < .gamma. ) - .alpha. ( x p - .gamma. 1
- .gamma. ) if .omega. E and ( x P .gtoreq. .gamma. ) ( 7 )
##EQU00005##
where .alpha. is the maximum desired set-point velocity
(corresponding to maximum muscular effort), .gamma. is the value at
which the normalized EMG is thresholded (in this case .gamma.=0.2),
x.sub.p is the PCA projection along the principal axis. For the
actual samples, x.sub.q and x.sub.h denote the normalized EMG
signals for the quadriceps and hamstrings muscles, respectively.
For the PCA projections, x.sub.p and x.sub.s denote the first
principal and second principal components, respectively.
[0072] B. Volitional Trajectory Tracking of a Powered Knee
Prosthesis
[0073] The volitional knee controller of FIG. 1 was implemented on
each of the three amputee subjects with the powered transfemoral
prosthesis 500 shown in FIG. 5 and described in detail in U.S.
patent application Ser. No. 12/427,384 to Goldfarb et al, filed
Apr. 21, 2009, the contents of which are herein incorporated in
their entirety. However, the various embodiments are not limited to
any particular design of a prosthesis. Thus, other designs can be
used with the various embodiments.
[0074] As shown in FIG. 5, prosthesis 500 includes a knee actuation
unit 502 for actuating a knee joint 514, an ankle actuation unit
504 for actuating an ankle joint 508, and an embedded system 506
housing, for example, a battery and the controller module or
system. Both the knee joint 514 and ankle joint 508 can incorporate
integrated potentiometers for joint angle position. The ankle
actuation unit can include a spring 505. One 3-axis accelerometer
is located on the embedded system 506 and a second is located below
the ankle joint 508 on the ankle pivot member 510. A strain based
sagittal plane moment sensor 512 can located between the knee joint
514 and the socket connector 516, which measures the moment between
a socket 524 and the prosthesis 500. Prosthesis also includes a
foot 518 designed to measure the ground reaction force components
at the ball 520 of the foot and heel 522. Each of heel 522 and ball
520 incorporates a full bridge of semiconductor strain gages that
measure the strains resulting from the respective ground contact
forces. The prosthetic foot can be designed to be housed in a soft
prosthetic foot shell (not shown).
[0075] As noted above, The prosthesis used in these experiments
also contains a powered ankle, although the ankle was not
explicitly commanded in these experiments, but rather remained in a
"neutral" configuration. In order to characterize the effectiveness
of the volitional controller for purposes of moving the knee joint,
an experiment was developed which required each subject to track
various types of knee joint angle movements. During these
experiments, each amputee was presented with a computer monitor
that showed in real-time a desired knee angle, along with the knee
angle of the powered prosthesis, as measured by the joint angle
sensor on the prosthesis.
[0076] Prosthesis sockets with embedded EMG electrodes for each
subject were not available for these experiments. Normally, such
EMG electrodes would be disposed similarly to the configuration
illustrated in FIG. 5 in order to correspond with locations of the
residual portions of the hamstring and/or quadriceps on an amputee.
That is, referring back to FIG. 5, the socket 524 for prosthesis
500 would be configured to include electrodes 526 positioned along
inner surfaces of socket 524 and at locations such that the user's
hamstring and/or quadriceps would come into contact with electrodes
526. Signals from electrodes 526 would then be provided to the
embedded system 506. Additionally, to allow the embedded system 506
to provide feedback to the user as to which joint is active, a
tactor 528, coupled to embedded system 506, would be embedded into
socket 524, as described above.
[0077] However, since the various embodiments of the volitional
controller are intended for non-weight-bearing activity such as
sitting, the subjects did not wear the powered prosthesis during
the knee control experiments, but rather the subjects were seated
in a chair and the powered knee prosthesis was mounted to a bench
immediately next to the subject. The prosthesis was mounted in an
orientation that was consistent with the seated position of the
subjects.
[0078] Aside from the QDA and PCA parameters extracted from the EMG
intent database, all subjects utilized the same set of volitional
control parameters for the powered prosthesis. Specifically, the
stiffness of the impedance controller was selected as k=1.0 Nm/deg,
the damping as b=0.01 Nm/deg/s, the maximum set-point velocity
.alpha.=50 deg/s. These parameters were selected experimentally to
provide an acceptable bandwidth of motion, while maintaining a
natural appearance of motion and a stable interaction with
obstacles in the environment (e.g., the leg of a chair).
[0079] In order to characterize volitional control of various types
of motion, four different desired trajectories were constructed
(referred herein as trajectories A through D). The trajectory A
joint angle tracking task consisted of set point trajectories
requiring the subject to quickly change the knee angle in 8 to 45
degree increments and to hold it for 5 to 10 seconds. Trajectory B
consisted of sloped trajectories, which were intended to measure
the subject's ability to move the prosthesis at different constant
velocities. Trajectories C and D consisted of sinusoidal waves at
0.2 and 0.33 Hz, respectively (i.e., five-second and three-second
periods, respectively), which were intended to measure the
subject's ability to move the leg up and down smoothly at
continuously varying velocities. Trajectories A and B lasted for a
total duration of 160 and 180 seconds, respectively, while
trajectories C and D lasted for a total duration of 60 seconds
each.
[0080] For each amputee subject, three sessions of experiments were
conducted, each on a different day, with each successive session
approximately one week apart. During the experimental sessions, the
amputee spent approximately one hour practicing the tracking of the
four trajectories (A through D), during which the various
trajectories were presented to the amputee in an arbitrary order.
After completion of the third session (i.e., after approximately
one hour of practice in the third session), the subject's
performance was evaluated in a single set of performance tests,
consisting of one trial each of trajectories A through D.
Representative trajectory tracking performance data corresponding
to subject 3, whose average performance was between that of
subjects 1 and 2, is shown in FIGS. 6A-6D. FIG. 6 show x-y plots of
EMG-controlled powered prosthesis knee position for trajectories
A-D, respectively, of the third amputee subject in FIG. 3C.
[0081] The root-mean-square (RMS) trajectory tracking error for all
amputee subjects for each of the four trajectories is summarized in
Table I. As seen in the table, the average RMS tracking error
across all subjects and all trajectories was 6.2 deg.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE I RMS ERROR FOR EMG CONTROL OF POWERED KNEE
Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 EMG Control EMG EMG EMG Avg.
Trajectory A 6.8 8.2 8.0 7.7 Trajectory B 2.5 3.9 3.7 3.4
Trajectory C 4.4 7.2 5.3 5.6 Trajectory D 8.4 8.3 7.1 7.9 Subject
Avg. 5.5 6.9 6.0 6.2
[0082] B. Comparison to Intact Knee Trajectory Tracking
[0083] In order to provide context for the trajectory tracking data
summarized in Table I, corresponding experiments were conducted to
assess the ability of each amputee to track the same set of knee
joint angle trajectories with his sound knee. These experiments
were conducted in a single session, since familiarization with the
prosthesis and volitional impedance controller was not necessary
(i.e., each subject was already quite familiar with the movement
control of his sound knee). As such, each subject spent
approximately 15 minutes practicing each set of trajectories, until
each was comfortable with his ability to track the trajectories.
Once sufficiently comfortable, each subject's performance was
evaluated in a single set of performance tests, consisting of one
trial each of trajectories A through D. Movement of the subjects'
sound knee was measured by using a knee brace instrumented with a
goniometer. The knee brace did not impose any significant
constraints on knee movement. Representative data corresponding to
subject 3 (whose prosthetic side data is shown in FIGS. 6A-6D) is
shown in FIGS. 7A-7D. FIGS. 7A-7D shows x-y plots of sound-side
knee position for trajectories A-D, respectively, of the third
amputee subject in FIG. 3C.
[0084] The RMS trajectory tracking error for sound side knee angle
tracking for all subjects for each of the four trajectories is
summarized in Table II.
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE II RMS ERROR FOR VOLITIONAL CONTROL OF INTACT
KNEE Subject 1 Subject 2 Subject 3 Sound Sound Sound Sound Side
Avg. Trajectory A 6.1 6.8 7.6 6.8 Trajectory B 1.4 1.8 3.1 2.1
Trajectory C 4.6 6.1 6.4 5.7 Trajectory D 4.5 6.4 7.7 6.2 Subject
Avg. 4.2 5.3 6.2 5.2
[0085] As seen in Table II, the average RMS tracking error across
all subjects and all trajectories for sound knee tracking was 5.2
deg. Recall from Table I that the average RMS tracking error across
all subjects and all trajectories for the EMG-based prosthesis knee
tracking was 6.2 deg, thus indicating a difference in tracking
error between the prosthetic and intact knee joints of one degree.
As such, as indicated collectively by the tracking data, the
ability of the amputee to control non-weight-bearing knee joint
motion of the powered prosthesis (with the EMG-based impedance
controller) is nearly as good as their ability to control
non-weight-bearing knee joint motion in their intact knee. Further,
the performance differences were fairly invariant with respect to
movement type. Specifically, the average RMS errors for trajectory
A (steps) were 7.7 deg and 6.8 deg, respectively, for the
prosthetic and intact joints, and thus the difference in average
error was 0.9 deg. The average RMS errors for trajectory B (ramps)
were 3.4 deg and 2.1 deg, respectively, for the prosthetic and
intact joints, and thus the difference in average error was 1.3
deg. For trajectory C (the slower sinusoid), the average RMS errors
were 5.6 deg and 5.7 deg, respectively, for the prosthetic and
intact joints, and thus the tracking performance for the slower
sinusoid was essentially the same for the prosthetic and intact
joint control. Finally, for trajectory D (the faster sinusoid), the
average RMS errors were 7.9 deg and 6.2 deg, respectively, for the
prosthetic and intact joints, and thus the prosthesis controller
demonstrated 1.7 deg more error on average than the intact
joint.
[0086] The resulting control approach shows that the resulting
volitional control provides trajectory tracking performance close
to that of their respective intact knee joints, thus indicating
that the approach provides effective control of knee joint motion
during non-weight-bearing activity.
[0087] While various embodiments of the present invention have been
described above, it should be understood that they have been
presented by way of example only, and not limitation. Numerous
changes to the disclosed embodiments can be made in accordance with
the disclosure herein without departing from the spirit or scope of
the invention. Thus, the breadth and scope of the present invention
should not be limited by any of the above described embodiments.
Rather, the scope of the invention should be defined in accordance
with the following claims and their equivalents.
[0088] Although the invention has been illustrated and described
with respect to one or more implementations, equivalent alterations
and modifications will occur to others skilled in the art upon the
reading and understanding of this specification and the annexed
drawings. In addition, while a particular feature of the invention
may have been disclosed with respect to only one of several
implementations, such feature may be combined with one or more
other features of the other implementations as may be desired and
advantageous for any given or particular application.
[0089] The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing
particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of
the invention. As used herein, the singular forms "a", "an" and
"the" are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise. Furthermore, to the extent
that the terms "including", "includes", "having", "has", "with", or
variants thereof are used in either the detailed description and/or
the claims, such terms are intended to be inclusive in a manner
similar to the term "comprising."
[0090] Unless otherwise defined, all terms (including technical and
scientific terms) used herein have the same meaning as commonly
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this
invention belongs. It will be further understood that terms, such
as those defined in commonly used dictionaries, should be
interpreted as having a meaning that is consistent with their
meaning in the context of the relevant art and will not be
interpreted in an idealized or overly formal sense unless expressly
so defined herein.
* * * * *