Just noticeable differences for elbow joint torque feedback

Joint torque feedback is a new and promising means of kinesthetic feedback imposed by a wearable device. The torque feedback provides the wearer temporal and spatial information during a motion task. Nevertheless, little research has been conducted on quantifying the psychophysical parameters of how well humans can perceive external torques under various joint conditions. This study aims to investigate the just noticeable difference (JND) perceptual ability of the elbow joint to joint torques. The paper focuses on the ability of two primary joint proprioceptors, the Golgi-tendon organ (GTO) and muscle spindle (MS), to detect elbow torques, since touch and pressure sensors were masked. We studied 14 subjects while the arm was isometrically contracted (static condition) and was moving at a constant speed (dynamic condition). In total there were 10 joint conditions investigated, which varied the direction of the arm’s movement and the preload direction as well as torque direction. The JND torques under static conditions ranged from 0.097 Nm with no preload to 0.197 Nm with a preload of 1.28 Nm. The maximum dynamic JND torques were 0.799 Nm and 0.428 Nm, when the arm was flexing and extending at 213 degrees per second, respectively.

Balance Recovery based on Whole-Body Control using Joint Torque Feedback for Quadrupedal Robots

In legged locomotion, the contact force between a robot and the ground plays a crucial role in balancing the robot. However, in quadrupedal robots, general whole-body controllers generate feed-forward force commands without considering the actual torque or force feedback. This paper presents a whole-body controller by using the actual joint torque measured from a torque sensor, which enables the quadrupedal robot to demonstrate both dynamic locomotion and reaction to external disturbances. We compute external joint torque using the measured joint torque and the robot's dynamics, and then transform this to the moment of the center of mass (CoM). Using the computed CoM moment, the moment-based impedance controller distributes a feed-forward force corresponding to the desired moment of the CoM to stabilize the robot's balance. Furthermore, to recover balance, the CoM motion is generated using capture point-based stepping control and zero moment point trajectory. The proposed whole-body controller was tested on a quadrupedal robot, named AiDIN-VI. Locomotive abilities on uneven terrains and slopes and in the presence of external disturbances are verified through experiments.

Comparison of vibrotactile and joint-torque feedback in a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis

BackgroundDespite the technological advancements in myoelectric prostheses, body-powered prostheses remain a popular choice for amputees, in part due to the natural sensory advantage they provide. Research on haptic feedback in myoelectric prostheses has delivered mixed results. Furthermore, there is limited research comparing various haptic feedback modalities in myoelectric prostheses. In this paper, we present a comparison of the feedback intrinsically present in body-powered prostheses (joint-torque feedback) to a commonly proposed feedback modality for myoelectric prostheses (vibrotactile feedback). In so doing, we seek to understand whether the advantages of kinesthetic feedback present in body-powered prostheses translate to myoelectric prostheses, and whether there are differences between kinesthetic and cutaneous feedback in prosthetic applications.MethodsWe developed an experimental testbed that features a cable-driven, voluntary-closing 1-DoF prosthesis, a capstan-driven elbow exoskeleton, and a vibrotactile actuation unit. The system can present grip force to users as either a flexion moment about the elbow or vibration on the wrist. To provide an equal comparison of joint-torque and vibrotactile feedback, a stimulus intensity matching scheme was utilized. Non-amputee participants (n=12) were asked to discriminate objects of varying stiffness with the prosthesis in three conditions: no haptic feedback, vibrotactile feedback, and joint-torque feedback.ResultsResults indicate that haptic feedback increased discrimination accuracy over no haptic feedback, but the difference between joint-torque feedback and vibrotactile feedback was not significant. In addition, our results highlight nuanced differences in performance depending on the objects’ stiffness, and suggest that participants likely pay less attention to incidental cues with the addition of haptic feedback.ConclusionEven when haptic feedback is not modality matched to the task, such as in the case of vibrotactile feedback, performance with a myoelectric prosthesis can improve significantly. This implies it is possible to achieve the same benefits with vibrotactile feedback, which is cheaper and easier to implement than other forms of feedback.