title: Evaluation of EMG, force and joystick as control interfaces for active arm supports.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The performance capabilities and limitations of control interfaces for the operation of active movement-assistive devices remain unclear. Selecting an optimal interface for an application requires a thorough understanding of the performance of multiple control interfaces.
  
  
  METHODS
  In this study the performance of EMG-, force- and joystick-based control interfaces were assessed in healthy volunteers with a screen-based one-dimensional position-tracking task. The participants had to track a target that was moving according to a multisine signal with a bandwidth of 3 Hz. The velocity of the cursor was proportional to the interface signal. The performance of the control interfaces were evaluated in terms of tracking error, gain margin crossover frequency, information transmission rate and effort.
  
  
  RESULTS
  None of the evaluated interfaces was superior in all four performance descriptors. The EMG-based interface was superior in tracking error and gain margin crossover frequency compared to the force- and the joystick-based interfaces. The force-based interface provided higher information transmission rate and lower effort than the EMG-based interface. The joystick-based interface did not present any significant difference with the force-based interface for any of the four performance descriptors. We found that significant differences in terms of tracking error and information transmission rate were present beyond 0.9 and 1.4 Hz respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Despite the fact that the EMG-based interface is far from the natural way of interacting with the environment, while the force-based interface is closer, the EMG-based interface presented very similar and for some descriptors even a better performance than the force-based interface for frequencies below 1.4 Hz. The classical joystick presented a similar performance to the force-based interface and holds the advantage of being a well established interface for the control of many assistive devices. From these findings we concluded that all the control interfaces considered in this study can be regarded as a candidate interface for the control of an active arm support.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands. j.loboprat@utwente.nl.
authors.forename: Joan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Lobo-Prat
authors.forename: Arvid Q L
authors.initials: AQ
authors.lastname: Keemink
authors.forename: Arno H A
authors.initials: AH
authors.lastname: Stienen
authors.forename: Alfred C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Schouten
authors.forename: Peter H
authors.initials: PH
authors.lastname: Veltink
authors.forename: Bart F J M
authors.initials: BF
authors.lastname: Koopman
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001132:Arm / Q000502:physiology*; D004576:Electromyography / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009468:Neuromuscular Diseases / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D012656:Self-Help Devices; D014584:User-Computer Interface; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: J Rehabil Res Dev. 1984 May;21(1):19-31
references.pmid: 6527287
references.citation: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Jan;20(1):9-15
references.pmid: 15567531
references.citation: J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2005 Sep;10(3):229-58
references.pmid: 16221284
references.citation: Commun ACM. 2011;54(5):60-66
references.pmid: 21984822
references.citation: Med Eng Phys. 2012 Apr;34(3):261-8
references.pmid: 22051085
references.citation: J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):661-7
references.pmid: 21938653
references.citation: Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001;215(3):267-74
references.pmid: 11436269
references.citation: J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):629-41
references.pmid: 21938651
references.citation: Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:3515-8
references.pmid: 22255098
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011 Jun;37(6):884-91
references.pmid: 21546151
references.citation: JAMA. 2009 Feb 11;301(6):619-28
references.pmid: 19211469
references.citation: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012 Aug;59(8):2180-90
references.pmid: 22588573
references.citation: J Neurosci Methods. 2006 Jun 30;154(1-2):134-41
references.pmid: 16434105
references.citation: IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013 Jun;2013:6650491
references.pmid: 24187308
references.citation: IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012 Sep;20(5):663-77
references.pmid: 22665514
references.citation: IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2011;2011:5975397
references.pmid: 22275600
references.citation: J Physiol. 2006 Jun 1;573(Pt 2):511-23
references.pmid: 16556656
references.citation: Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2010 Feb;21(1):79-86
references.pmid: 19951779
references.citation: J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2006 Dec;16(6):541-8
references.pmid: 17045489
references.citation: PM R. 2011 Jan;3(1):55-67
references.pmid: 21257135
references.citation: J Neurosci Methods. 2002 Sep 15;119(1):1-14
references.pmid: 12234629
references.citation: Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2001;215(3):275-84
references.pmid: 11436270
references.citation: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2006 Nov;53(11):2387-96
references.pmid: 17073345
references.citation: Med Eng Phys. 2012 May;34(4):397-408
references.pmid: 22177895
references.citation: J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):669-78
references.pmid: 21938654