Abstract
AbstractPeripheral nerve interfaces (PNIs) allow us to extract motor, sensory and autonomic information from the nervous system and use it as control signals in neuroprosthetic and neuromodulation applications. Recent efforts have aimed to improve the recording selectivity of PNIs, including by using spatiotemporal patterns from multi-contact nerve cuff electrodes as input to a convolutional neural network (CNN). Before such a methodology can be translated to humans, its performance in chronic implantation scenarios must be evaluated. In this simulation study, approaches were evaluated for maintaining selective recording performance in the presence of two chronic implantation challenges: the growth of encapsulation tissue and rotation of the nerve cuff electrode. Performance over time was examined in three conditions: training the CNN at baseline only, supervised re-training with explicitly labeled data at periodic intervals, and a semi-supervised self-learning approach. This study demonstrated that a selective recording algorithm trained at baseline will likely fail over time due to changes in signal characteristics resulting from the chronic challenges. Results further showed that periodically recalibrating the selective recording algorithm can maintain its performance over time, and that a self-learning approach has the potential to reduce the frequency of recalibration.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference61 articles.
1. G. S. Dhillon , S. M. Lawrence , D. T. Hutchinson , and K. W. Horch , “Residual function in peripheral nerve stumps of amputees: Implications for neural control of artificial limbs,” J. Hand Surg. Am., 2004.
2. G. S. Dhillon , T. B. Krüger , J. S. Sandhu , and K. W. Horch , “Effects of short-term training on sensory and motor function in severed nerves of long-term human amputees,” J. Neurophysiol., 2005.
3. D. T.S. et al., “Restoring motor control and sensory feedback in people with upper extremity amputations using arrays of 96 microelectrodes implanted in the median and ulnar nerves,” J. Neural Eng., 2016.
4. S. Micera et al., “Decoding information from neural signals recorded using intraneural electrodes: Toward the development of a neurocontrolled hand prosthesis,” Proc. IEEE, 2010.
5. A. Inmann and M. Haugland , “Functional evaluation of natural sensory feedback incorporated in a hand grasp neuroprosthesis,” Med. Eng. Phys., 2004.