skip to main content
10.1145/2984511.2984572acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesuistConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

proCover: Sensory Augmentation of Prosthetic Limbs Using Smart Textile Covers

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 October 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Today's commercially available prosthetic limbs lack tactile sensation and feedback. Recent research in this domain focuses on sensor technologies designed to be directly embedded into future prostheses. We present a novel concept and prototype of a prosthetic-sensing wearable that offers a non-invasive, self-applicable and customizable approach for the sensory augmentation of present-day and future low to mid-range priced lower-limb prosthetics. From consultation with eight lower-limb amputees, we investigated the design space for prosthetic sensing wearables and developed novel interaction methods for dynamic, user-driven creation and mapping of sensing regions on the foot to wearable haptic feedback actuators. Based on a pilot-study with amputees, we assessed the utility of our design in scenarios brought up by the amputees and we summarize our findings to establish future directions for research into using smart textiles for the sensory enhancement of prosthetic limbs.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

uist4226-file3.mp4

mp4

60.9 MB

p335-leong.mp4

mp4

185.7 MB

uist-0411.mp4

mp4

329.3 MB

References

  1. Büscher, G.H., Kõiva, R., Schürmann, C., Haschke, R., and Ritter, H.J. Flexible and stretchable fabric-based tactile sensor. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 63, (2015), 244--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Crea, S., Cipriani, C., Donati, M., Carrozza, M.C., and Vitiello, N. Providing time-discrete gait information by wearable feedback apparatus for lower-limb amputees: usability and functional validation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 23, 2 (2015), 250--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Danilovic, A. SmartCast - Novel Textile Sensors for Embedded Pressure Sensing of Orthopedic Casts. 2013. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3wg3p08j.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Fan, R.E., Culjat, M.O., King, C.-H., et al. A haptic feedback system for lower-limb prostheses. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 16, 3 (2008), 270--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Geldard, F.A. and Sherrick, C.E. The Cutaneous "Rabbit": A Perceptual Illusion. Science 178, 4057 (1972), 178--179. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Hammock, M.L., Chortos, A., Tee, B.C.-K., Tok, J.B.-H., and Bao, Z. 25th Anniversary Article: The Evolution of Electronic Skin (E-Skin): A Brief History, Design Considerations, and Recent Progress. Advanced Materials 25, 42 (2013), 5997--6038. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Hofmann, M., Harris, J., Hudson, S., and Mankoff, J. Helping Hands: Requirements for a Prototyping Methodology for Upper-limb Prosthetics Users. Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '16, ACM (2016), 525--534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Hurst, A. and Tobias, J. Empowering individuals with do-it-yourself assistive technology. The Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility - ASSETS '11, ACM Press (2011), 11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Israr, A. and Poupyrev, I. Tactile brush. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '11, ACM Press (2011), 2019--2028. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kaczmarek, K.A., Webster, J.G., Bach-y-Rita, P., and Tompkins, W.J. Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitution systems. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 38, 1 (1991), 1--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Kaltenbrunner, M., Sekitani, T., Reeder, J., et al. An ultra-lightweight design for imperceptible plastic electronics. Nature 499, 7459 (2013), 458--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Lieberman, J. and Breazeal, C. TIKL: Development of a Wearable Vibrotactile Feedback Suit for Improved Human Motor Learning. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 23, 5 (2007), 919--926. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Oddo, C.M., Raspopovic, S., Artoni, F., et al. Intraneural stimulation elicits discrimination of textural features by artificial fingertip in intact and amputee humans. eLife 5, (2016), e09148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Parzer, P., Probst, K., Babic, T., et al. FlexTiles: A Flexible, Stretchable, Formable, Pressure Sensitive, Tactile Input Sensor. Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA '16, ACM (2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Perner-Wilson, H. rSkin - Open Source Robot Skin. http://www.instructables.com/id/rSkin-Open-SourceRobot-Skin/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Perrier, A., Vuillerme, N., Luboz, V., et al. Smart Diabetic Socks: Embedded device for diabetic foot prevention. Innovation and Research in BioMedical engineering 35, 2 (2014), 72--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Raspopovic, S., Capogrosso, M., Petrini, F.M., et al. Restoring Natural Sensory Feedback in Real-Time Bidirectional Hand Prostheses. Science Translational Medicine 6, 222 (2014), 222ra19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Sabolich, J.A. and Ortega, G.M. Sense of Feel for Lower-Limb Amputees: A Phase-One Study. JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 6, 2 (1994), 36--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Schönauer, C., Fukushi, K., Olwal, A., Kaufmann, H., and Raskar, R. Multimodal motion guidance. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ACM Press (2012), 133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Shull, P.B. and Damian, D.D. Haptic wearables as sensory replacement, sensory augmentation and trainer -- a review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 12, 1 (2015), 59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Starr, M. Lego-compatible prosthetic arm lets kids build their own hand. http://www.cnet.com/news/lego-compatibleprosthetic-arm-lets-kids-build-their-own-hand/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Tan, D.W., Schiefer, M.A., Keith, M.W., Anderson, J.R., Tyler, J., and Tyler, D.J. A neural interface provides long-term stable natural touch perception. Science Translational Medicine 6, 257 (2014), 257ra138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Tee, B.C.-K., Chortos, A., Berndt, A., et al. A skin-inspired organic digital mechanoreceptor. Science 350, 6258 (2015), 313--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Tiwana, M.I., Redmond, S.J., and Lovell, N.H. A review of tactile sensing technologies with applications in biomedical engineering. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 179, (2012), 17--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Walsh, F. Artificial leg allows patient to feel. 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33052091.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Weigel, M., Lu, T., Bailly, G., Oulasvirta, A., Majidi, C., and Steimle, J. iSkin. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15, ACM Press (2015), 2991--3000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Weinstein, S. Intensive and extensive aspects of tactile sensitivity as a function of body part, sex and laterality. The First International Symposium on the Skin Senses, (1968).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. The Cost of a New Limb Can Add up Over a Lifetime. https://www.hss.edu/newsroom_prosthetic-leg-costover-lifetime.asp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sensoria Fitness. http://www.sensoriafitness.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Products - Smart Sock. http://www.alphafit.de/en/products/smartsock.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Product development Alphamat + Smart Sock. http://www.nova-nex.com/de/projekte/alphamatsmart-sock.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Outcome Measures in Lower Limb Prosthetics | KLevels. http://www.oandp.org/olc/course_extended_content. asp'frmCourseId=ACA066EC-443A-4822--822C89BC1CBD684E&frmTermId=k-levels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Pressure sensor. 2010. https://www.google.com/patents/US7770473.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Peripheral sensory and supersensory replacement system. 2012. http://www.google.com/patents/CA2813656A1'cl=en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. proCover: Sensory Augmentation of Prosthetic Limbs Using Smart Textile Covers

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      UIST '16: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
      October 2016
      908 pages
      ISBN:9781450341899
      DOI:10.1145/2984511

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 October 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      UIST '16 Paper Acceptance Rate79of384submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate842of3,967submissions,21%

      Upcoming Conference

      UIST '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader