|
|
|
|
|
|
VISUAL FEEDBACK
1995Download the complete report (91 KB, PDF Format) |
 get adobe acrobat reader |
|
Cooper. R. Latrobe University, Australia. Cullis. E. Latrobe University, Australia. Bach. T. Latrobe University, Australia. |
Cumbo. J. REHABTech Australia. Angliss. V. REHABTech Australia. Contoyannis. B. REHABTech Australia. |
|
Rod has assembled a myoelectric training prosthesis incorporating a visual feedback system previously developed by REHABTech and has examined whether the addition of a visual feedback unit aids the user to more easily learn to operate a myoelectric prosthesis One of the major disadvantages of a myoelectric operated prosthesis is that the user is deprived of the sensory feedback which is gained from the harness of a body powered prosthesis. The amputee using the myoelectric prosthesis relies heavily upon visual feedback to perform the task. |
 |
In order to assist the amputee a visual feedback system was designed at Monash Rehabilitation Technology Research Unit with Elise Cullis.The feedback mechanism uses L.E.D displays, which relay information regarding the electrode activation, grip and the level of battery power. Using this system, sixteen non amputee subjects were evaluated.Employing a specially designed training arm to examine the hypothesis: that the additional visual feedback can promote learning when initially fitted with a myoelectric prosthesis.
Eight subjects went through a training and functioning regime using the feedback and eight control subjects did the same without feedback. Subjective appraisals were monitored as well as objective performance measures.
Fourteen able-bodied subjects were fitted with an adjustable myoelectric training arm. Subjects were randomly assigned to two groups: an experimental group which received training with feedback and a control group which trained with the feedback unit turned off.Subjects received five one-hour training sessions and were evaluated on a form board test at the end of each session.
A two-way ANOVA for repeated measures indicated that the effect of training was significant in that both groups improved across training sessions (F=8.38, df=48,4, p<0.001). However, enhanced feedback did not significantly affect learning (F=0.71, df=4,4,p=0.591). Subjects in the experimental group commented that the feedback was useful in the early learning stages but that they relied less and less on the feedback unit as training progressed.Based on the results and the comments of participants, design modifications to the feedback unit were recommended.
