Skip to main content

Experimental Validation of a Rapid, Adaptive Robotic Assessment of the MCP Joint Angle Difference Threshold

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Haptics: Neuroscience, Devices, Modeling, and Applications (EuroHaptics 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 8619))

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental evaluation of a rapid, adaptive assessment of the difference threshold (DL) of passive metacarpophalangeal index finger joint flexion using a robotic device. Parameter Estimation by Sequential Testing (PEST) is compared to the method of constant stimuli (MOCS) using a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm. The pilot study with \(13\) healthy subjects provided DLs within similar ranges for MOCS and PEST, averaging at \(2.15^{\circ }\pm 0.77^{\circ }\) and \(1.73^{\circ }\pm 0.78^{\circ }\), respectively, in accordance with the literature. However, no significant correlation was found between the two methods (\(r(11) = 0.09\), \(p = 0.762\)). The average number of trials required for PEST to converge was \(58.7\pm 17.6\), and significantly lower compared to \(120\) trials for MOCS (\(p < 0.001\)), leading to an assessment time of under \(15\) min. These results suggest that rapid, adaptive methods, such as PEST, could be successfully implemented in novel robotic tools for clinical assessment of sensory deficits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bell-Krotoski, J., Weinstein, S., Weinstein, C.: Testing sensibility, including touch-pressure, two-point discrimination, point localization, and vibration. J. Hand Ther. 6(2), 114–123 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jerosch-Herold, C.: A study of the relative responsiveness of five sensibility tests for assessment of recovery after median nerve injury and repair. J. Hand Surg.-Brit. Eur. 28(3), 255–260 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lincoln, N.B., Crow, J.L., Jackson, J.M., Waters, G.R., Adams, S.A., Hodgson, P.: The unreliability of sensory assessments. Clin. Rehabil. 5(4), 273–282 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brewer, B.R., Fagan, M., Klatzky, R.L., Matsuoka, Y.: Perceptual limits for a robotic rehabilitation environment using visual feedback distortion. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 13(1), 1–11 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tan, H.Z., Srinivasan, M.A., Reed, C.M., Durlach, N.I.: Discrimination and identification of finger joint-angle position using active motion. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. (TAP) 4(2), 10 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lambercy, O., Juárez Robles, A., Kim, Y., Gassert, R.: Design of a robotic device for assessment and rehabilitation of hand sensory function. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR), pp. 1–6, June 2011

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gescheider, G.: Psychophysics: Method, Theory, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Watson, A.B., Fitzhugh, A.: The method of constant stimuli is inefficient. Percept. Psychophysics 47(1), 87–91 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Macmillan, N.A., Douglas Creelman, C.: Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Taylor, M.M., Douglas Creelman, C.: PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41, 782 (1967)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Oldfield, R.C.: The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1), 97–113 (1971)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Prins, N., Kingdom, F.A.A.: Palamedes: matlab routines for analyzing psychophysical data (2009). http://www.palamedestoolbox.org

  13. Taylor, M.M., Forbes, S.M., Douglas Creelman, C.: PEST reduces bias in forced choice psychophysics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 74, 1367 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank J.-C. Metzger for inspiring and profitable discussions, as well as J. Liepert, M. Kaiser and V. Raible for their help in defining the clinical requirements for stroke patients. This research was supported by the National Center of Competence in Research on Neural Plasticity and Repair of the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Janggen-Pöhn Foundation and ETH Zurich.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike D. Rinderknecht .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Rinderknecht, M.D., Popp, W.L., Lambercy, O., Gassert, R. (2014). Experimental Validation of a Rapid, Adaptive Robotic Assessment of the MCP Joint Angle Difference Threshold. In: Auvray, M., Duriez, C. (eds) Haptics: Neuroscience, Devices, Modeling, and Applications. EuroHaptics 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8619. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44196-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44196-1_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44195-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44196-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics