1 / 6

Dimitra Blana, PhD; Juan G. Hincapie, PhD; Edward K. Chadwick, PhD; Robert F. Kirsch, PhD

Selection of muscle and nerve-cuff electrodes for neuroprostheses using customizable musculoskeletal model. Dimitra Blana, PhD; Juan G. Hincapie, PhD; Edward K. Chadwick, PhD; Robert F. Kirsch, PhD. Aim

kirima
Download Presentation

Dimitra Blana, PhD; Juan G. Hincapie, PhD; Edward K. Chadwick, PhD; Robert F. Kirsch, PhD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Selection of muscle and nerve-cuff electrodes for neuroprostheses usingcustomizable musculoskeletal model Dimitra Blana, PhD; Juan G. Hincapie, PhD; Edward K. Chadwick, PhD; Robert F. Kirsch, PhD

  2. Aim • Present systematic approach to muscle and nerve-cuff electrode selection for neuroprosthetic system that considers functional goals, hardware limitations, muscle and nerve anatomy, surgical feasibility. • Relevance • Identifying optimal electrode set for neuroprosthesis is complicated because it depends on characteristics of individual, force capacities of muscles, movements the system aims to restore, and hardware limitations.

  3. Method • Developed electrode-selection method that used customized musculoskeletal model. • Created candidate electrode sets based on desired functional outcomes and hardware limitations of proposed system. • Performed inverse-dynamic simulations to determine proportion of target movements that could be accomplished with each set. • Chose set allowing most movements to be performed as optimal set.

  4. Model Inputs are 11 angles of shoulder and elbow (3 each at sternoclavi-cular, acromioclavicular, and glenohumeraljoints; elbow flexion-extension; and forearm pronation-supination).

  5. Results • Optimal muscle set: • Prime shoulder movers • Deltoid, pectoralis major. • Shoulder stabilizers • Infraspinatus, supraspinatus, subscapularis, serratus anterior, rhomboids. • Elbow flexion-extension • Biceps, brachialis, medial/ lateral triceps. • Forearm pronation/ supination • Pronator quadratus, supinator. • This muscle set had relatively high success rate for simple movements of elbow and forearm and reaching to low-level target such as tabletop.

  6. Conclusion • Nerve-cuff placement and selectivity were important factors in: • Determination of predicted function. • Choice of nerves and muscles to target. • Musculoskeletal models can facilitate development of neuroprosthetic systems by: • Quantifying importance of various muscles on different movements. • Allowing appropriate allocation of stimulating electrodes without time-consuming trial-and-error.

More Related