This paper presents the design, analysis, fabrication, experimental characterization, and evaluation of two prototypes of robotic extra fingers that can be used as grasp compensatory devices for a hemiparetic upper limb. The devices are the results of experimental sessions with chronic stroke patients and consultations with clinical experts. Both devices share a common principle of work, which consists in opposing the device to the paretic hand or wrist so to restrain the motion of an object. They can be used by chronic stroke patients to compensate for grasping in several activities of daily living (ADLs) with a particular focus on bimanual tasks. The robotic extra fingers are designed to be extremely portable and wearable. They can be wrapped as bracelets when not being used, to further reduce the encumbrance. Both devices are intrinsically compliant and driven by a single actuator through a tendon system. The motion of the robotic devices can be controlled using an electromyography-based interface embedded in a cap. The interface allows the user to control the device motion by contracting the frontalis muscle. The performance characteristics of the devices have been measured experimentally and the shape adaptability has been confirmed by grasping various objects with different shapes. We tested the devices through qualitative experiments based on ADLs involving five chronic stroke patients. The prototypes successfully enabled the patients to complete various bimanual tasks. Results show that the proposed robotic devices improve the autonomy of patients in ADLs and allow them to complete tasks that were previously impossible to perform.
AlleyRWilliamsTIAlbuquerqueMet al. (2011) Prosthetic sockets stabilized by alternating areas of tissue compression and release. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development48(6): 679.
AszmannOCRocheADSalmingerSet al. (2015) Bionic reconstruction to restore hand function after brachial plexus injury: A case series of three patients. Lancet385(9983): 2183–2189.
4.
BalasubramanianSKleinJBurdetE (2010) Robot-assisted rehabilitation of hand function. Current Opinion in Neurology23(6): 661–670.
5.
BelterJTSegilJL (2013) Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: A review. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development50(5): 599.
6.
BicchiABavaroMBoccadamoGet al. (2008) Physical human–robot interaction: Dependability, safety, and performance. In: 10th IEEE international workshop on advanced motion control, Trento, Italy, 26–28 March 2008, pp. 9–14. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
BrottTAdamsHOlingerCPet al. (1989) Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: A clinical examination scale. Stroke20(7): 864–870.
9.
ÇalliBWalsmanASinghAet al. (2015) Benchmarking in manipulation research: The YCB object and model set and benchmarking protocols. arXiv abs/1502.03143.
10.
CassonAJLogesparanLRodriguez-VillegasE (2010) An introduction to future truly wearable medical devices—from application to ASIC. In: 2010 annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 31 August–4 September 2010, pp. 3430–3431. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
11.
CatalanoMGGrioliGFarnioliEet al. (2014) Adaptive synergies for the design and control of the Pisa/IIT SoftHand. International Journal of Robotics Research33(5): 768–782.
12.
DavisWEBurtonAW (1991) Ecological task analysis: Translating movement behavior theory into practice. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly8(2): 154–177.
13.
DemersLWeiss-LambrouRSkaB (2002) The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0): An overview and recent progress. Technology and Disability14(3): 101–105.
14.
DollarAMHoweRD (2010) The highly adaptive SDM hand: Design and performance evaluation. International Journal of Robotics Research29(5): 585–597.
15.
DollarAMHoweRD (2011) Joint coupling design of underactuated hands for unstructured environments. International Journal of Robotics Research30(9): 1157–1169.
16.
EppnerCBrockO (2013) Grasping unknown objects by exploiting shape adaptability and environmental constraints. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Tokyo, Japan, 3–7 November 2013, pp. 4000–4006. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
17.
FalcoJVan WykKLiuSet al. (2015) Grasping the performance: Facilitating replicable performance measures via benchmarking and standardized methodologies. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine22(4): 125–136.
18.
FarinaDMerlettiR (2000) Comparison of algorithms for estimation of EMG variables during voluntary isometric contractions. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology10(5): 337–349.
19.
FelzerTFreislebenB (2002) HaWCoS: the hands-free wheelchair control system. In: Proceedings of the fifth international ACM conference on assistive technologies, Edinburgh, Scotland, 8–10 July 2002, pp. 127–134. New York: ACM.
20.
GaffordJDingYHarrisAet al. (2014) Shape deposition manufacturing of a soft, atraumatic, deployable surgical grasper. Journal of Medical Devices8(3): 030927.
21.
GillenG (2015) Stroke Rehabilitation: A Function-Based Approach. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Health Sciences.
22.
GoASMozaffarianDRogerVLet al. (2014) Heart disease and stroke statistics—2014 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation129(3): e28.
23.
GrafC (2008) The Lawton instrumental activities of daily living scale. American Journal of Nursing108(4): 52–62.
24.
HeoPGuGMLeeSJet al. (2012) Current hand exoskeleton technologies for rehabilitation and assistive engineering. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing13(5): 807–824.
25.
HollandDPParkEJPolygerinosPet al. (2014) The soft robotics toolkit: Shared resources for research and design. Soft Robotics1(3): 224–230.
26.
HussainIMeliLPacchierottiCet al. (2015a) Vibrotactile haptic feedback for intuitive control of robotic extra fingers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE world haptics conference, Evanston, IL, 22–26 June 2015, 394–399. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
27.
HussainISalviettiGMalvezziMet al. (2017a) On the role of stiffness design for fingertip trajectories of underactuated modular soft hands. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Singapore, 29 May–3 June 2017. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
28.
HussainISalviettiGMeliLet al. (2015b) Using the robotic sixth finger and vibrotactile feedback for grasp compensation in chronic stroke patients. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RAS-EMBS international conference on rehabilitation robotics, Singapore, 11–14 August 2015, pp. 67–72. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
29.
HussainISalviettiGSpagnolettiGet al. (2016) The Soft-SixthFinger: A wearable EMG controlled robotic extra-finger for grasp compensation in chronic stroke patients. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters1(2): 1000–1006.
30.
HussainISalviettiGSpagnolettiGet al. (2017b) A soft supernumerary robotic finger and mobile arm support for grasping compensation and hemiparetic upper limb rehabilitation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems93: 1–12.
31.
KiguchiKTanakaTFukudaT (2004) Neuro-fuzzy control of a robotic exoskeleton with EMG signals. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems12(4): 481–490.
32.
KonradP (2005) The ABC of EMG: A Practical Introduction to Kinesiological Electromyography. Scottsdale, AZ: Noraxon, Inc.
33.
LaschiCCianchettiM (2014) Soft robotics: New perspectives for robot bodyware and control. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology2: 3.
34.
LumPSGodfreySBBrokawEBet al. (2012) Robotic approaches for rehabilitation of hand function after stroke. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation91(11): S242–S254.
35.
LundAM (2001) Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface8(2): 3–6.
36.
MaRRBelterJTDollarAM (2015) Hybrid deposition manufacturing: Design strategies for multimaterial mechanisms via three-dimensional printing and material deposition. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics7(2): 021002.
37.
MengQLeeMH (2006) Design issues for assistive robotics for the elderly. Advanced Engineering Informatics20(2): 171–186.
38.
MerlettiRBotterATroianoAet al. (2009) Technology and instrumentation for detection and conditioning of the surface electromyographic signal: State of the art. Clinical Biomechanics24(2): 122–134.
39.
MerloACampaniniI (2010) Technical aspects of surface electromyography for clinicians. The Open Rehabilitation Journal3(1): 98–109.
40.
MichaelsenSMJacobsSRoby-BramiAet al. (2004) Compensation for distal impairments of grasping in adults with hemiparesis. Experimental Brain Research157(2): 162–173.
41.
MiguelezJMiguelezMAlleyR (2004) Amputations about the shoulder: Prosthetic management. Atlas of Amputations and Limb Deficiencies—Surgical, Prosthetic, and Rehabilitation Principles. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 263–273.
42.
NakayamaHJorgensenHSRaaschouHOet al. (1994) Compensation in recovery of upper extremity function after stroke: The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation75(8): 852–857.
43.
NowakDA (2008) The impact of stroke on the performance of grasping: Usefulness of kinetic and kinematic motion analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews32(8): 1439–1450.
44.
OdhnerLUJentoftLPClaffeeMRet al. (2014) A compliant, underactuated hand for robust manipulation. International Journal of Robotics Research33(5): 736–752.
45.
OrtTWuFHenselNCet al. (2015) Supernumerary robotic fingers as a therapeutic device for hemiparetic patients. In: ASME 2015 dynamic systems and control conference, Columbus, OH, 28–30 October 2015, p. V002T27A010. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
46.
OskoeiMAHuH (2007) Myoelectric control systems—a survey. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control2(4): 275–294.
47.
PonsJRoconECeresRet al. (2004) The MANUS-HAND dextrous robotics upper limb prosthesis: Mechanical and manipulation aspects. Autonomous Robots16(2): 143–163.
PonsJL (2010) Rehabilitation exoskeletal robotics. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine29(3): 57–63.
50.
PrattichizzoDMalvezziMHussainIet al. (2014a) The Sixth-Finger: A modular extra-finger to enhance human hand capabilities. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international symposium in robot | human interactive communication. Edinburgh, UK, 25–29 August 2014. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
51.
PrattichizzoDSalviettiGChinelloFet al. (2014b) An object-based mapping algorithm to control wearable robotic extra-fingers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics. Besanon, France, 8–11 July 2014. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
52.
RaghavanPKrakauerJWGordonAM (2006) Impaired anticipatory control of fingertip forces in patients with a pure motor or sensorimotor lacunar syndrome. Brain129(6): 1415–1425.
SalviettiGHussainICioncoloniDet al. (2016) Compensating hand function in chronic stroke patients through the robotic sixth finger. IEEE Transactions on Neural System and Rehabilitation Engineering25(2): 142–150.
55.
SaponasTSTanDSMorrisDet al. (2008) Demonstrating the feasibility of using forearm electromyography for muscle–computer interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy, 5–10 April 2008, pp. 515–524. New York: ACM.
56.
SchwarzRJ (1955) The anatomy and mechanics of the human hand. Artificial Limbs2(2): 22–35.
57.
StangerCAAnglinCHarwinWSet al. (1994) Devices for assisting manipulation: A summary of user task priorities. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 2(4): 256–265.
58.
TimoshenkoSGereJ (1972) Mechanics of Materials. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
59.
VanderborghtBAlbu-SchäfferABicchiAet al. (2013) Variable impedance actuators: A review. Robotics and Autonomous Systems61(12): 1601–1614.
60.
Van der LoosHMReinkensmeyerDJ (2008) Rehabilitation and health care robotics. In: SicilianoBKhatibO (eds.) Springer Handbook of Robotics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 1223–1251.
61.
WebbJXiaoZGAschenbrennerKPet al. (2012) Towards a portable assistive arm exoskeleton for stroke patient rehabilitation controlled through a brain computer interface. In: 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, Rome, Italy, 24–27 June 2012 pp. 1299–1304. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
62.
WuFAsadaH (2014) Bio-artificial synergies for grasp posture control of supernumerary robotic fingers. In: Robotics: science and systems, Berkeley, CA, 12–16 July 2014. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
63.
WuFYAsadaHH (2016) Implicit and intuitive grasp posture control for wearable robotic fingers: A data-driven method using partial least squares. IEEE Transactions on Robotics32(1): 176–186.
64.
ZeccaMMiceraSCarrozzaMet al. (2002) Control of multifunctional prosthetic hands by processing the electromyographic signal. Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering30(4–6): 459–485.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
