Soft-packaged sensory glove system for human-like natural interaction and control of prosthetic hands
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract People with hand amputations experience strenuous daily life challenges, often leading to lifelong use of a prosthetic hand(s) and services. Modern advanced prosthetic hands must be able to provide human hand-like sensory perceptions to receive external stimuli during daily activities while simultaneously replicating a realistic appearance and physical properties to naturally integrate in social contexts; however, the practical realization of these issues are impeded by a lack of effective methodologies. Herein, we present an optimal set of materials, design layouts, and fabrication schemes to construct an easy-to-wear seamless electronic glove (e-glove) suitable for arbitrary hand shapes that provides all of the desired human hand-like features. The system configuration involves a connection to a control wristwatch unit for real-time display of sensory data measured and remote transmission to the user. The experimental and computational studies provide details regarding the underlying principles of the materials selection, mechanics design, and operational management of the entire system. The demonstration of the e-glove system in interactions with human subjects illustrates the utility, comfort, and convenience of this device.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials · Tactile and Sensory Interactions · Muscle activation and electromyography studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. Mckechnie, P. & John, A. Anxiety and depression following traumatic limb amputation: A systematic review. Inj.-Int. J. Care Inj. 45, 1859–1866 (2014).10.1016/j.injury.2014.09.015 ↗
2. Grob, M., Papadopulos, N. A., Zimmermann, A., Biemer, E. & Kovacs, L. The psychological impact of severe hand injury. J. Hand Surg.-Eur. 33, 358–362 (2008).10.1177/1753193407087026 ↗
3. Gallagher, P. & Desmond, D. Measuring quality of life in prosthetic practice: benefits and challenges. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 31, 167–176 (2007).10.1080/03093640600988633 ↗
4. Cabibihan, J., Pattofatto, S., Jomaa, M., Benallal, A. & Carrozza, M. Towards humanlike social touch for sociable robotics and prosthetics: comparisons on the compliance, conformance and hysteresis of synthetic and human fingertip skins. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 1, 29–40 (2009).10.1007/s12369-008-0008-9 ↗
5. Cordella, F. et al. Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Front. Neurosci. 10, 209 (2016).
6. Kim, D. et al. Epidermal electronics. Science 333, 838–843 (2011).10.1126/science.1206157 ↗
7. Kim, J. et al. Stretchable silicon nanoribbon electronics for skin prosthesis. Nat. Commun. 5, 5747 (2014).
8. Wang, S. et al. Skin electronics from scalable fabrication of an intrinsically stretchable transistor array. Nature 555, 83–88 (2018).10.1038/nature25494 ↗
9. Kaltenbrunner, M. et al. An ultra-lightweight design for imperceptible plastic electronics. Nature 499, 458–463 (2013).10.1038/nature12314 ↗
10. Chossat, J.-B., Shin, H.-S., Park, Y.-L. & Duchaine, V. Soft Tactile skin using an embedded ionic liquid and tomographic imaging. J. Mech. Robotics-Trans. Asme 7, 021008 (2015).10.1115/1.4029474 ↗
11. Chortos, A., Liu, J. & Bao, Z. A. Pursuing prosthetic electronic skin. Nat. Mater. 15, 937–950 (2016).10.1038/nmat4671 ↗
12. Ota, H. et al. Application of 3D printing for smart objects with embedded electronic sensors and systems. Adv. Mater. Technol. 1, 1600013 (2016).
13. Mishra, R. K. et al. Wearable flexible and stretchable glove biosensor for on-site detection of organophosphorus chemical threats. ACS Sensors 2, 553–561 (2017).10.1021/acssensors.7b00051 ↗
14. Boley, J. W., White, E. L. & Kramer, R. K. Mechanically sintered gallium-indium nanoparticles. Adv. Mater. 27, 2355–2360 (2015).10.1002/adma.201404790 ↗
15. Lee, P. et al. Highly stretchable and highly conductive metal electrode by very long metal nanowire percolation network. Adv. Mater. 24, 3326–3332 (2012).10.1002/adma.201200359 ↗
16. Carlson, A., Bowen, A., Huang, Y., Nuzzo, R. & Rogers, J. Transfer printing techniques for materials assembly and micro/nanodevice fabrication. Adv. Mater. 24, 5284–5318 (2012).10.1002/adma.201201386 ↗
17. Kim, S. et al. Microstructured elastomeric surfaces with reversible adhesion and examples of their use in deterministic assembly by transfer printing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 17095–17100 (2010).10.1073/pnas.1005828107 ↗
18. Wie, D. S. et al. Wafer-recyclable, environment-friendly transfer printing for large-scale thin-film nanoelectronics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7236–7244 (2018).10.1073/pnas.1806640115 ↗
19. Lee, C. et al. Soft core/shell packages for stretchable electronics. Adv. Funct. Mater. 25, 3698–3704 (2015).10.1002/adfm.201501086 ↗
20. Heikenfeld, J. et al. Wearable sensors: modalities, challenges, and prospects. Lab a Chip 18, 217–248 (2018).10.1039/C7LC00914C ↗
21. Han, S. et al. Mechanically reinforced skin-electronics with networked nanocomposite elastomer. Adv. Mater. 28, 10257–10265 (2016).10.1002/adma.201603878 ↗
22. Kim, D. H. et al. Optimized structural designs for stretchable silicon integrated circuits. Small 5, 2841–2847 (2009).10.1002/smll.200900853 ↗
23. Girden, E. R. ANOVA: Repeated measures, Vol. 84. (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1992).10.4135/9781412983419 ↗
24. Mauchly, J. W. Significance test for sphericity of a normal n-variate distribution. Ann. Math. Stat. 11, 204–209 (1940).10.1214/aoms/1177731915 ↗
25. Norušis, M. J. SPSS 14.0 guide to data analysis. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006).
26. Cipriani, C. et al. A novel concept for a prosthetic hand with a bidirectional interface: A Feasibility Study. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 56, 2739–2743 (2009).10.1109/TBME.2009.2031242 ↗
27. Moran, C. W. Revolutionizing prosthetics 2009 modular prosthetic limb-body interface: overview of the prosthetic socket development. Johns. Hopkins Apl. Tech. Dig. 30, 240–249 (2011).
28. Hutchinson, D. T. The quest for the bionic arm. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 22, 346–351 (2014).10.5435/JAAOS-22-06-346 ↗
29. Raspopovic, S. et al. Restoring natural sensory feedback in real-time bidirectional hand prostheses. Sci. Trans. Med. 6, 222ra19 (2014).
30. Tabot, G. A. et al. Restoring the sense of touch with a prosthetic hand through a brain interface. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18279–18284 (2013).10.1073/pnas.1221113110 ↗
31. Gurari, N., Kuchenbecker, K. J. & Okamura, A. M. Perception of springs with visual and proprioceptive motion cues: implications for prosthetics. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 43, 102–114 (2013).10.1109/TSMCA.2012.2221038 ↗