Improving Upper-limb Prosthesis Usability: Cognitive Workload Measures Quantify Task Difficulty
Paskett, M. D.; Garcia, J. K.; Jones, S. T.; Brinton, M. R.; Davis, T. S.; Duncan, C. C.; Cooper, J. M.; Strayer, D. L.; Clark, G. A.
Show abstract
Providing user-focused, objective, and quantified metrics for prosthesis usability may help reduce the high (up to 50%) abandonment rates and accelerate the clinical adoption and cost reimbursement for new and improved prosthetic systems. We comparatively evaluated several physiological, behavioral, and subjective cognitive workload measures applied to upper-limb neuroprosthesis use. Users controlled a virtual prosthetic arm via surface electromyography (sEMG) and completed a virtual target control task at easy and hard levels of difficulty (with large and small targets, respectively). As indices of cognitive workload, we took behavioral (Detection Response Task; DRT) and electroencephalographic (EEG; parietal alpha and frontal theta power, and the P3 event-related potential) measures for one group (n = 1 amputee participant, n = 10 non-amputee participants), and electrocardiographic (ECG; low/high frequency heart-rate variability ratio) and pupillometric (task-evoked pupillary response) measures for another group (n = 1 amputee participant, n = 10 non-amputee participants), because all measures could not reasonably be recorded simultaneously. Participants of both groups also completed the subjective NASA Task-Load Index (TLX) survey. Ease of use, setup, piloting, and analysis complexity varied among measures. The DRT required minimal piloting, was simple to set up, and used straightforward analyses. ECG measures required moderate piloting, were simple to set up, and had somewhat complex analyses. Pupillometric measures required extensive piloting but were simple to set up and relatively simple to analyze. EEG measures required extensive piloting, extensive setup and equipment, careful monitoring, and moderately complex analyses. Across subjects, the DRT, low/high frequency heart-rate variability ratio, task-evoked pupillary response, and NASA TLX significantly differentiated between the easy and hard tasks, whereas EEG measures (alpha power, theta power, and P3 event-related potential) did not. Aside from the NASA TLX, the DRT was the easiest to use and most sensitive to cognitive load across and within subjects. Among physiological measures, we recommend ECG, pupillometry, and EEG/ERPs, in that order. This study provides the first evaluation of multiple objective and quantified cognitive workload measures during the same task with prosthesis use. User-focused cognitive workload assessments may increase our understanding of human interactions with advanced upper-limb neuroprostheses and facilitate their improvements and translation to real-world use. Significance StatementThe human arm is dexterous and able to sense objects it contacts. Restoring sensory and motor function to a person with limb loss presents multiple challenges and requires improvements in robotics, biological interfaces, decoding biological signals for prosthesis movement, and sensory restoration. The scientific and engineering communities have made progress toward restoring arm function through advanced neuroprostheses. However, most studies focus solely on task performance, and they typically employ artificial experimental paradigms in which the user can devote full attention to the task, which is often unrealistic for use in everyday activities. To develop neuroprostheses capable of restoring intuitive arm function, engineers and scientists must also consider the difficulty of use, or cognitive burden, of using the neuroprosthesis. Although many measures of cognitive workload have been developed, few studies directly interrogate cognitive workload during neuroprosthesis use. An engineer or scientist seeking to employ cognitive workload measures during neuroprosthesis use will likely wonder, as we did, which measures are most suitable for their needs. To address this question, we empirically assess the practical and functional merits and limitations of several physiological, behavioral, and subjective techniques to measure cognitive workload during use of an advanced prosthesis. We anticipate that these findings may influence other medical and consumer areas of human-computer interaction, such as virtual reality or exoskeleton use.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Understanding the Utility of State-Based Haptic Feedback in Tendon-driven Anthropomorphic Prostheses 95%
- Brain Dynamics of Spatial Reference Frame Proclivity in Active Navigation 94%
- Visual Occlusions Result in Phase Synchrony Within Multiple Brain Regions Involved in Sensory Processing and Balance Control 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis 94%
- Multimodal immersive trail making - virtual reality paradigm to study cognitive-motor interactions 93%
- Don’t put words in my mouth: Speech perception can generate False Positive activation of a speech BCI 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Bodily ownership of an independent supernumerary limb: An exploratory study 95%
- Playing the piano with a robotic third thumb: Assessing constraints of human augmentation 95%
- Immersive virtual prism adaptation therapy with depth sensing camera: A feasibility study with functional near infrared spectroscopy in healthy adults 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of Inter-Joint Coordination Strategies during Activities of Daily Living with Prosthetic and Anatomical Limbs 95%
- Resting-state aperiodic neural dynamics predict individual differences in visuomotor performance and learning 95%
- Moving by thoughts alone? Amount of finger movement and pendulum length determine success in the Chevreul Pendulum Illusion 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.