Providing mobility solutions for individuals with tetraplegia remains challenging. Existing control devices have shortcomings such as varying or poor signal quality or interference with communication. To overcome these limitations, we present a novel myoelectric auricular control system (ACS) based on bilateral activation of the posterior auricular muscles (PAMs).
Methods:
Ten able-bodied subjects and two individuals with tetraplegia practiced PAM activation over 4 days using visual feedback and software-based training for 1 h/day. Initially, half of these subjects were not able to voluntarily activate their PAMs. This ability was tested with regard to 8 parameters such as contraction rate, lateralized activation, wheelchair speed and path length in a virtual obstacle course. In session 5, all subjects steered an electric wheelchair with the ACS.
Results:
Performance of all subjects in controlling their PAMs improved steadily over the training period. By day 5, all subjects successfully generated basic steering commands using the ACS in a powered wheelchair, and subjects with tetraplegia completed a complex real-world obstacle course. This study demonstrates that the ability to activate PAM on both sides together or unilaterally can be learned and used intuitively to steer a wheelchair.
Conclusions:
With the ACS we can exploit the untapped potential of the PAMs by assigning them a new, complex function. The inherent advantages of the ACS, such as not interfering with oral communication, robustness, stability over time and proportional and continuous signal generation, meet the specific needs of wheelchair users and render it a realistic alternative to currently available assistive technologies.
BareaR., BoqueteL., MazoM., & LopezE. (2002). System for assisted mobility using eye movements based on electrooculography. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 10(4), 209–218. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2002.806829
3.
BerzinF., & FortinguerraC.R. (1993). EMG study of the anterior, superior and posterior auricularmuscles inman. Ann Anat, 175(2), 195–197. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8489041
CraigA., TranY., & MiddletonJ. (2009). Psychological morbidity and spinal cord injury: A systematic review. Spinal Cord, 47(2), 108–114. doi: 10.1038/sc.2008.115
6.
DiezP.F., Torres MullerS.M., MutV.A., LaciarE., AvilaE., Bastos-FilhoT.F., & Sarcinelli-FilhoM. (2013). Commanding a robotic wheelchair with a high-frequency steady-state visual evoked potential based brain-computer interface. Medical Engineering and Physics, 35(8), 1155–1164. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2012.12.005
7.
DonoghueJ.P. (2008). Bridging the brain to the world: A perspective on neural interface systems. Neuron, 60(3), 511–521. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.037
8.
FehrL., LangbeinW.E., & SkaarS.B. (2000). Adequacy of power wheelchair control interfaces for persons with severe disabilities: A clinical survey. J Rehabil Res Dev, 37(3), 353–360. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10917267
9.
FoldesS.T., & TaylorD.M. (2010). Discreet discrete commands for assistive and neuroprosthetic devices. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 18(3), 236–244. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2009.2033428
10.
GraftonS.T. (2010). Unlocking communication with the nose. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(32), 13979–13980. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1009925107
11.
HanJeong-Su, Zenn BienZ., & KimDae-Jin, Hyong-EukLee, KimJong-Sung (2003). Human-machine interface for wheelchair control with EMG and its evaluation. IEEE, 2, 1602–1605. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2003.1279672
IturrateI., AntelisJ., & MinguezJ. (2009). Synchronous EEG Brain-Actuated Wheelchair with Automated Navigation. Icra: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1–7, 2530–2537. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000276080401096
14.
KarniA., MeyerG., JezzardP., AdamsM.M., TurnerR., & UngerleiderL.G. (1995). Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature, 377(6545), 155–158. doi: 10.1038/377155a0
15.
KimJ., ParkH., BruceJ., SuttonE., RowlesD., PucciD., HolbrookJ., MinochaJ., NardoneB., WestD., LaumannA., RothE., JonesM., VeledarE., & GhovanlooM. (2013). The tongue enables computer and wheelchair control for people with spinal cord injury. Science Translational Medicine, 5(213), 213–166. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006296
16.
KirshblumS.C., BurnsS.P., Biering-SorensenF., DonovanW., GravesD.E., JhaA., JohansenM., JonesL., KrassioukovA., MulcaheyM.J., Schmidt-ReadM., & WaringW. (2011). International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 34(6), 535–546. doi: 10.1179/204577211X13207446293695
17.
LontisE.R., & Andreasen StruijkL.N. (2012). Alternative design of inductive pointing device for oral interface for computers and wheelchairs. Conference Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2012, 3328–3331. doi: 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6346677
18.
LontisE.R., LundM.E., ChristensenH.V., BentsenB., GaihedeM., CaltencoH.A., & Andreasen StruijkL.N. (2010). Clinical evaluation of wireless inductive tongue computer interface for control of computers and assistive devices. Conference Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2010, 3365–3368. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627924
19.
MiddletonJames, TranYvonne, & CraigAshley (2007). Relationship between quality of life and self-efficacy in persons with spinal cord injuries. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(12), 1643–1648. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.09.001
20.
MillánJ.D., GalanF., VanhooydonckD., LewE., PhilipsJ., & NuttinM. (2009). Asynchronous non-invasive brain-actuated control of an intelligent wheelchair. Conference Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009, 3361–3364. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5332828
OldfieldR.C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5146491
24.
PlotkinA., SelaL., WeissbrodA., KahanaR., HavivL., YeshurunY., SorokerN., & SobelN. (2010). Sniffing enables communication and environmental control for the severely disabled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(32), 14413–14418. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006746107
25.
RubioS., DiazE., MartinJ., & PuenteJ.M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology-an International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 53(1), 61–86. doi: 10.1111/J.1464-0597.2004.00161.X
26.
RyuS.I., & ShenoyK.V. (2009). Human cortical prostheses: Lost in translation?Neurosurgical Focus, 27(1), E5. 10.3171/2009.4.FOCUS0987
27.
SerraG., TugnoliV., CristoforiM.C., EleopraR., & De GrandisD. (1986). The electromyographic examination of the posterior auricular muscle. Electromyography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 26(8), 661–665. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3830046
28.
SimpsonR.C., & LevineS.P. (2002). Voice control of a powered wheelchair. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 10(2), 122–125. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2002.1031981
29.
StruijkL.N. (2006). An inductive tongue computer interface for control of computers and assistive devices. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 53(12 Pt 2), 2594–2597. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2006.880871
30.
StruijkL.N., LontisE.R., BentsenB., ChristensenH.V., CaltencoH.A., & LundM.E. (2009). Fully integrated wireless inductive tongue computer interface for disabled people. Conference Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009, 547–550. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2009.5333192
31.
TanakaK., MatsunagaK., & WangH.O. (2005). Electroencephalogram-based control of an electric wheelchair. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 21(4), 762–766. doi: 10.1109/Tro.2004.842350
32.
TheofrastousJ.P., WymanJ.F., BumpR.C., McClishD.K., ElserD.M., BlandD.R., & FantlJ.A. (2002). Effects of pelvic floor muscle training on strength and predictors of response in the treatment of urinary incontinence. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 21(5), 486–490. doi: 10.1002/nau.10021
33.
WolpawJ.R., BirbaumerN., McFarlandD.J., PfurtschellerG., & VaughanT.M. (2002). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113(6), 767–791. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12048038
YoudinM., SellG.H., ReichT., ClagnazM., LouieH., & KolwiczR. (1980). A voice controlled powered wheelchair and environmental control system for the severely disabled. Medical Progress Through Technology, 7(2-3), 139–143. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7393174
36.
YousefiB., HuoX., & GhovanlooM. (2011). Preliminary assessment of Tongue Drive System in medium term usage for computer access and wheelchair control. Conference Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2011, 5766–5769. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091427
37.
YousefiB., HuoX., KimJ., VeledarE., & GhovanlooM. (2012). Quantitative and comparative assessment of learning in a tongue-operated computer input device–part II: Navigation tasks. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, 16(4), 633–643. doi: 10.1109/TITB.2012.2191793
