Biomimetic versus arbitrary motor control strategies for bionic hand skill learning

Hunter R. Schone,Malcolm Udeozor,Mae Moninghoff,Beth Rispoli,James Vandersea,Blair Lock,Levi Hargrove,Tamar R. Makin,Chris I. Baker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01811-6

IF: 24.252

2024-03-18

Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract:A long-standing engineering ambition has been to design anthropomorphic bionic limbs: devices that look like and are controlled in the same way as the biological body (biomimetic). The untested assumption is that biomimetic motor control enhances device embodiment, learning, generalization and automaticity. To test this, we compared biomimetic and non-biomimetic control strategies for non-disabled participants when learning to control a wearable myoelectric bionic hand operated by an eight-channel electromyography pattern-recognition system. We compared motor learning across days and behavioural tasks for two training groups: biomimetic (mimicking the desired bionic hand gesture with biological hand) and arbitrary control (mapping an unrelated biological hand gesture with the desired bionic gesture). For both trained groups, training improved bionic limb control, reduced cognitive reliance and increased embodiment over the bionic hand. Biomimetic users had more intuitive and faster control early in training. Arbitrary users matched biomimetic performance later in training. Furthermore, arbitrary users showed increased generalization to a new control strategy. Collectively, our findings suggest that biomimetic and arbitrary control strategies provide different benefits. The optimal strategy is probably not strictly biomimetic, but rather a flexible strategy within the biomimetic-to-arbitrary spectrum, depending on the user, available training opportunities and user requirements.

psychology, experimental,neurosciences,multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper aims to address a key issue in the design of bionic hand controllers, namely the comparison between biomimetic control strategies and arbitrary control strategies. Specifically, the study attempts to validate the following hypotheses:

1. **Advantages of Biomimetic Control**: It has long been believed that biomimetic designs can better enhance users' sense of embodiment, learning efficiency, generalization ability, and intuitive operation. However, these assumptions have not been fully validated.

2. **Possibility of Arbitrary Control**: Given the potential for neurocognitive conflicts, researchers hypothesize that arbitrary control strategies may perform better during training and generalize better to new control mappings after training.

The study evaluates the effectiveness of two control strategies—biomimetic (gestures consistent with actual intended gestures) and arbitrary (gestures unrelated to actual intended gestures)—in controlling a wearable electromyography (EMG) bionic hand. The subjects were non-disabled participants who learned to use the bionic hand over several days of training. The results indicate:

- Biomimetic control provided faster operation speed in early training, but this advantage diminished as training progressed.
- There was no significant difference between the two control strategies in learning complex tasks such as dexterity and gesture switching.
- Biomimetic control was more intuitive in the initial stages of training, but arbitrary control could reach similar levels later on.
- Participants' sense of embodiment increased during training, but this was independent of the control strategy.

Overall, the study suggests that the optimal control strategy may not be strictly biomimetic but rather a flexible choice between biomimetic and arbitrary strategies based on the specific needs of the user and available training opportunities.