Advertisement

Sequence-based manipulation of robotic arm control in brain machine interface

  • Justin Kilmarx
  • Reza Abiri
  • Soheil Borhani
  • Yang Jiang
  • Xiaopeng ZhaoEmail author
Regular Paper
  • 984 Downloads

Abstract

In brain machine interfaces (BMI), the brain activities are recorded by invasive or noninvasive approaches and translated into command signals to control external prosthetic devices such as a computer cursor, a wheelchair, or a robotic arm. Although many studies confirmed the capability of BMI systems in controlling multi degrees-of-freedom (DOF) prosthetic devices using invasive approaches, BMI research using noninvasive paradigms is still in its infancy. In this paper, a new robotic BMI platform has been developed using electroencephalography (EEG) technology to control a 6-DOF robotic arm. EEG signals were collected from the scalp using a wireless headset exploiting a new fast-training paradigm named as “imagined body kinematics”. A regression model was employed to decode the kinematic parameters from the EEG signals. The subjects were instructed to voluntarily control a virtual cursor in multiple trials to hit different pre-programmed targets on a screen in an optimized sequence. The command signals generated from hitting the targets during trials were applied to control sequential movements of the robotic arm in a discrete manner to manipulate an object in a two-dimensional workspace. This approach is derived from a basic shared control strategy where the robotic arm is responsible for carrying out complex maneuvers based on the user’s intention. Our proposed BMI platform yielded a high success rate of 70% in a sequence-based manipulation task after only a short time of training (10 min). The developed platform serves as a proof-of-concept for EEG-based neuro-prosthetic devices.

Keywords

Brain machine interface EEG Fast-training Robotic arm Manipulation task 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was in part supported by a NeuroNET seed grant to XZ; and in part by the NIH under grants NIH P30 AG028383 to the UK Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, NIH AG00986 to YJ, and NIH NCRR UL1TR000117 to the UK Center for Clinical and Translational Science. JK’s work was partially supported through a summer internship from the Office of Undergraduate Research at The University of Tennessee.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 24822 kb)

References

  1. Abiri, R., et al.: EEG-based control of a unidimensional computer cursor using imagined body kinematics. In: Biomedical Engineering Society Annual Meeting (BMES 2015). 2015aGoogle Scholar
  2. Abiri, R., et al.: A real-time brainwave based neuro-feedback system for cognitive enhancement. In: ASME 2015 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference (Columbus, OH). 2015bGoogle Scholar
  3. Abiri, R., et al.: Planar control of a quadcopter using a zero-training brain machine interface platform. In: Biomedical Engineering Society Annual Meeting (BMES 2016). 2016Google Scholar
  4. Abiri, R., et al.: Brain computer interface for gesture control of a social robot: an offline study. In: 2017 Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE). IEEE, New York, 2017Google Scholar
  5. Agashe, H., Contreras-Vidal, J.L.: Observation-based training for neuroprosthetic control of grasping by amputees. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE. IEEE, New York, 2014Google Scholar
  6. Agashe, H.A., et al.: Global cortical activity predicts shape of hand during grasping. Front. Neurosci. 9, 121 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aiqin, S., Binghui, F., Chaochuan, J.: Motor imagery EEG-based online control system for upper artificial limb. In: International Conference on Transportation, Mechanical, and Electrical Engineering (TMEE), 2011. 2011Google Scholar
  8. Antelis, J.M., et al.: On the usage of linear regression models to reconstruct limb kinematics from low frequency EEG signals. PLoS ONE 8(4), e61976 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bacher, D., et al.: Neural point-and-click communication by a person with incomplete locked-in syndrome. Neurorehabilit Neural Repair 29(5), 462–471 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baxter, B.S., Decker, A., He, B.: Noninvasive control of a robotic arm in multiple dimensions using scalp electroencephalogram. In: 2013 6th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, (NER) 2013. IEEE, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  11. Bhattacharyya, S., Konar, A., Tibarewala, D.: Motor imagery, P300 and error-related EEG-based robot arm movement control for rehabilitation purpose. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 52(12), 1007–1017 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhattacharyya, S., Shimoda, S., Hayashibe, M.: A synergetic brain-machine interfacing paradigm for multi-DOF robot control. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 46(7), 957–968 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhuiyan, M., Choudhury, I., Dahari, M.: Development of a control system for artificially rehabilitated limbs: a review. Biol. Cybern. 109(2), 141–162 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradberry, T.J., Gentili, R.J., Contreras-Vidal, J.L.: Decoding three-dimensional hand kinematics from electroencephalographic signals. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2009, 5010–5013 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. Bradberry, T.J., Gentili, R.J., Contreras-Vidal, J.L.: Reconstructing three-dimensional hand movements from noninvasive electroencephalographic signals. J. Neurosci. 30(9), 3432–3437 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bradberry, T.J., Gentili, R.J., Contreras-Vidal, J.L.: Fast attainment of computer cursor control with noninvasively acquired brain signals. J. Neural Eng. 8(3), 036010 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carmena, J.M., et al.: Learning to control a brain–machine interface for reaching and grasping by primates. PLoS Biol. 1(2), e42 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen, C.W., Lin, C.C.K., Ju, M.S.: Hand orthosis controlled using brain–computer interface. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 29(5), 234–241 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. Collinger, J.L., et al.: High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet 381(9866), 557–564 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doud, A.J., et al.: Continuous three-dimensional control of a virtual helicopter using a motor imagery based brain-computer interface. PLoS ONE 6(10), e26322 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fifer, M.S., et al.: Simultaneous neural control of simple reaching and grasping with the modular prosthetic limb using intracranial EEG. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22(3), 695–705 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilja, V., et al.: A high-performance neural prosthesis enabled by control algorithm design. Nat. Neurosci. 15(12), 1752–1757 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guger, C., et al.: Prosthetic control by an EEG-based brain-computer interface (BCI). In: Proceedings of AAATE 5th European conference for the advancement of assistive technology, 1999Google Scholar
  24. Hazrati, M.K., Hofmann, U.G.: Avatar navigation in Second Life using brain signals. In: IEEE 8th International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing (WISP), 2013. IEEE, New York, 2013Google Scholar
  25. Hazrati, M.K., et al.: Controlling a simple hand prosthesis using brain signals. Biomed. Eng./Biomed. Tech. 59, 1152–1155 (2014)Google Scholar
  26. He, B., et al.: Noninvasive brain-computer interfaces based on sensorimotor rhythms. Proc. IEEE 103(6), 907–925 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. Hochberg, L.R., et al.: Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm. Nature 485(7398), 372–375 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horki, P., et al.: Combined motor imagery and SSVEP based BCI control of a 2 DoF artificial upper limb. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 49(5), 567–577 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hortal, E., et al.: SVM-based brain–machine interface for controlling a robot arm through four mental tasks. Neurocomputing 151, 116–121 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iturrate, I., et al.: Teaching brain-machine interfaces as an alternative paradigm to neuroprosthetics control. Sci. Rep. 5, 13893 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, S.P., et al.: Neural control of computer cursor velocity by decoding motor cortical spiking activity in humans with tetraplegia. J. Neural Eng. 5(4), 455 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, Y.J., et al.: A study on a robot arm driven by three-dimensional trajectories predicted from non-invasive neural signals. Biomed. Eng. Online 14(1), 1 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kreilinger, A., Neuper, C., Müller-Putz, G.R.: Error potential detection during continuous movement of an artificial arm controlled by brain–computer interface. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 50(3), 223–230 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. LaFleur, K., et al.: Quadcopter control in three-dimensional space using a noninvasive motor imagery-based brain–computer interface. J. Neural Eng. 10(4), 046003 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li, T., et al.: Brain–machine interface control of a manipulator using small-world neural network and shared control strategy. J. Neurosci. Methods 224, 26–38 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luth, T., et al.: Low level control in a semi-autonomous rehabilitation robotic system via a brain-computer interface. In: IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, 2007. ICORR 2007. IEEE, New York, 2007Google Scholar
  37. McFarland, D.J., Sarnacki, W.A., Wolpaw, J.R.: Electroencephalographic (EEG) control of three-dimensional movement. J. Neural Eng. 7(3), 036007 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meng, J., et al.: Noninvasive electroencephalogram based control of a robotic arm for reach and grasp tasks. Sci. Rep. 6, 38565 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Millán, J.D.R.: Brain-machine interfaces: the perception-action closed loop: a two-learner system. IEEE Syst. Man Cybern. Mag. 1(1), 6–8 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miranda, R.A., et al.: DARPA-funded efforts in the development of novel brain–computer interface technologies. J. Neurosci. Methods 244, 52–67 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muller-Putz, G.R., Pfurtscheller, G.: Control of an electrical prosthesis with an SSVEP-based BCI. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 55(1), 361–364 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murguialday, A.R., et al.: Brain–computer interface for a prosthetic hand using local machine control and haptic feedback. In: 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, ICORR 2007, 2007Google Scholar
  43. Nicolas-Alonso, L.F., Gomez-Gil, J.: Brain computer interfaces, a review. Sensors 12(2), 1211–1279 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nirenberg, L.M., Hanley, J., Stear, E.B.: A new approach to prosthetic control: eeg motor signal tracking with an adaptively designed phase-locked loop. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 18(6), 389–398 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ofner, P., Muller-Putz, G.R.: Decoding of velocities and positions of 3D arm movement from EEG. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2012, 6406–6409 (2012)Google Scholar
  46. Pfurtscheller, G., et al.: Self-paced operation of an SSVEP-based orthosis with and without an imagery-based “brain switch:” a feasibility study towards a hybrid BCI. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18(4), 409–414 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Royer, A.S., et al.: EEG control of a virtual helicopter in 3-dimensional space using intelligent control strategies. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18(6), 581–589 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schalk, G., et al.: BCI2000: a general-purpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 51(6), 1034–1043 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schalk, G., et al.: Two-dimensional movement control using electrocorticographic signals in humans. J. Neural Eng. 5(1), 75 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schultz, A.E., Kuiken, T.A.: Neural interfaces for control of upper limb prostheses: the state of the art and future possibilities. PM&R 3(1), 55–67 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sequeira, S., Diogo, C., Ferreira, F.J.T.E.: EEG-signals based control strategy for prosthetic drive systems. In: 2013 IEEE 3rd Portuguese Meeting in Bioengineering (ENBENG), 2013Google Scholar
  52. Slutzky, M.W., Flint, R.D.: Physiological properties of brain-machine interface input signals. J. Neurophysiol. 118(2), 1329–1343 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taylor, D.M., Tillery, S.I.H., Schwartz, A.B.: Direct cortical control of 3D neuroprosthetic devices. Science 296(5574), 1829–1832 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ubeda, A., et al.: Linear decoding of 2D hand movements for target selection tasks using a non-invasive BCI system. In: Systems Conference (SysCon), 2013 IEEE International. 2013Google Scholar
  55. Velliste, M., et al.: Cortical control of a prosthetic arm for self-feeding. Nature 453(7198), 1098–1101 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vidaurre, C., Blankertz, B.: Towards a cure for BCI illiteracy. Brain Topogr. 23(2), 194–198 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vidaurre, C., et al.: EEG-based BCI for the linear control of an upper-limb neuroprosthesis. Med. Eng. Phys. 38(11), 1195–1204 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vogel, J., et al.: An assistive decision-and-control architecture for force-sensitive hand–arm systems driven by human–machine interfaces. Int. J. Robot. Res. 34(6), 763–780 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolpaw, J.R., McFarland, D.J.: Control of a two-dimensional movement signal by a noninvasive brain-computer interface in humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101(51), 17849–17854 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolpaw, J.R., et al.: An EEG-based brain-computer interface for cursor control. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 78(3), 252–259 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wright, J., et al.: A Review of control strategies in closed-loop neuroprosthetic systems. Front. Neurosci. 10, 312 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Xia, B., et al.: A combination strategy based brain–computer interface for two-dimensional movement control. J. Neural Eng. 12(4), 046021 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yuan, H., He, B.: Brain–computer interfaces using sensorimotor rhythms: current state and future perspectives. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 61(5), 1425–1435 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan Francisco/BerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Behavioral Science, College of MedicineUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations