IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v8y2024i6d10.1038_s41562-023-01811-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Biomimetic versus arbitrary motor control strategies for bionic hand skill learning

Author

Listed:
  • Hunter R. Schone

    (National Institutes of Health
    University College London
    University of Pittsburgh
    University of Pittsburgh)

  • Malcolm Udeozor

    (National Institutes of Health)

  • Mae Moninghoff

    (National Institutes of Health)

  • Beth Rispoli

    (National Institutes of Health)

  • James Vandersea

    (Medical Center Orthotics and Prosthetics)

  • Blair Lock

    (Coapt)

  • Levi Hargrove

    (Northwestern University
    Shirley Ryan AbilityLab)

  • Tamar R. Makin

    (University College London
    University of Cambridge)

  • Chris I. Baker

    (National Institutes of Health)

Abstract

A long-standing engineering ambition has been to design anthropomorphic bionic limbs: devices that look like and are controlled in the same way as the biological body (biomimetic). The untested assumption is that biomimetic motor control enhances device embodiment, learning, generalization and automaticity. To test this, we compared biomimetic and non-biomimetic control strategies for non-disabled participants when learning to control a wearable myoelectric bionic hand operated by an eight-channel electromyography pattern-recognition system. We compared motor learning across days and behavioural tasks for two training groups: biomimetic (mimicking the desired bionic hand gesture with biological hand) and arbitrary control (mapping an unrelated biological hand gesture with the desired bionic gesture). For both trained groups, training improved bionic limb control, reduced cognitive reliance and increased embodiment over the bionic hand. Biomimetic users had more intuitive and faster control early in training. Arbitrary users matched biomimetic performance later in training. Furthermore, arbitrary users showed increased generalization to a new control strategy. Collectively, our findings suggest that biomimetic and arbitrary control strategies provide different benefits. The optimal strategy is probably not strictly biomimetic, but rather a flexible strategy within the biomimetic-to-arbitrary spectrum, depending on the user, available training opportunities and user requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Hunter R. Schone & Malcolm Udeozor & Mae Moninghoff & Beth Rispoli & James Vandersea & Blair Lock & Levi Hargrove & Tamar R. Makin & Chris I. Baker, 2024. "Biomimetic versus arbitrary motor control strategies for bionic hand skill learning," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(6), pages 1108-1123, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1038_s41562-023-01811-6
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01811-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01811-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-023-01811-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tamar R. Makin & Jan Scholz & Nicola Filippini & David Henderson Slater & Irene Tracey & Heidi Johansen-Berg, 2013. "Phantom pain is associated with preserved structure and function in the former hand area," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:8:y:2024:i:6:d:10.1038_s41562-023-01811-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.