Carmena, J. M. (2013). Advances in neuroprosthetic learning and control. PLoS Biology, 11(5).

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001561
Goal of robotic prosthetics in the future is to connect them to the central nervous
system and control them neurologically
Large challenge of having neural-implant controlled prosthetics is having brain
recognize prosthetic device that is not part of the body and control it accurately
Providing sensory feedback from prosthetic to brain that is normally stimulated
by body parts replaced by prosthetic would allow user to have sense of touch through the
prosthetic
Neural adaptation (brain plasticity) and and artificial adaptation (machine
learning) used together in a coadaptive way would be best way to maximize effectiveness
of current neurally-controlled prosthetic
Ultimate goal is to drastically increase controllable degrees of freedom of
prosthetic to allow user to easily go about daily life
Two approaches in how to connect brain to prosthetic: using a device that
connects the limb and brain and then mathematically predicts the movements based off
brain activity and turning them into physical motion in the prosthetic, and having the
brain learn how to control a new actuator, which would serve as a secondary central
nervous system
Treating the prosthetic as a modified central nervous system could be easier than
trying to decode messages sent by the brain to parts of the body, especially in users with
damage to their spinal cord, as it would only the require the user to learn how to control
the arm, brain would only be required to learn how to move a part that is not a natural
part of the body (if this is possible)
Brain can easily learn how to control neuroprosthetic actions through information
of regular biological movements or through simply adapting to the prosthetic
Ability to learn how to control device is also dependent on complexity of the
prosthetic device and the task that is needed to be performed using the device (simple
tasks are easier to learn and can be learned in a matter of days, while more complex tasks
requires more experience in controlling the device, means more skill in doing
neuroprosthetic actions is required)
If a prosthetic is more complex, which would entail a larger degree of motion and
more resemblance to a real human limb, much more skill and training would be required
to effectively be able to use it to complete complex tasks found in everyday life
Simpler prosthetic= easier to use, but more limitations
Realistic sensory feedback from prosthetic would allow for more natural control

Presher, A. (2015, August). Novel motors give robotic hands a more human touch: new small
partial motor design offers very high power, torque and control flexibility for
implementing robotic fingers and hands. Design News, 70(8), F1+.
Availability of high torque compact motors has been an obstacle in creating a
robotic hand that can be as flexible and realistic as a human hand
Being solved by direct drive servo technology and partial motor concept
Robots dont typically have hands and fingers, usually pneumatic controlled
grippers instead
Current motors in robotic finger allow same movement as human finger, weigh
about 350 grams and are 1.5 times bigger than the average adult male finger
Human fingers are capable of exerting large amounts of pressure compared to
their size, something that is incredibly difficult to duplicate in a robotic hand with motors
while maintaining a similar size
Rear knuckle on human hand can move finger up and down and side to side 15
degrees, can on average move 0.6 lb.
Knuckle closest to fingertip moves front part of finger up and down at 45 degrees,
can create about 2 lb. of pressure (10 N)
SMAC prototype fingers consist of three motors to mimic the movements of a
human finger and replicate the force output up to 80%
Finger can gently come into surfaces by recognizing them and use programmable
forces to create desired movements
Small controllers and amplifiers can store 40 to 50 programs that each control an
axis in the finger, could be used to command robotic hand to pick up objects
Linear motion technology has allowed for increase in flux density of partial
motors ( can run at 1.5 A and 24 V)
Aiming to create a size reduction in motors, doing so could result in more realistic
life-sized hand models
Also aim to increase pressure output that fingers are capable of, necessary to be
able to more accurately mimic abilities of human hand
Current models of SMAC robotic fingers are basically too large to be used for
prosthetics, bigger than regular human fingers yet also not capable of exerting same
amounts of force that human fingers are, however they are already capable of bending
and moving in all the same ways that a human finger can and could even be designed to
have a larger degree of movement that real human fingers do

Astaras, A., Moustakas, N., Athanasiou, A., & Gogoussis, A. (2013). Towards brain-computer
interface control of a 6-degree-of-freedom robotic arm using dry EEG electrodes.
Advances in Human-Computer Interaction.

 Brain-computer interfaces can result in very accurate or high percentage in

restoration of motor movement abilities,
Current focus is to use BCIs that are minimally intrusive, low cost, and portable
Omitted wrist yaw in order to simplify robotic arm, which does not significantly
affect ability of robot to manipulate objects
2 degrees of freedom for shoulder joint (right-left and up-down), 1 DOF for
elbow, 1 DOF for wrist, 2 DOF for shoulder-elbow rotation and and elbow-wrist
Equipped with electromechanical gripper, operated by two servo motors
Robotic arms controlled through brain-wave reading headsets worn by operators,
have unreliable signal reading quality but are minimally invasive and fairly cheap
Tests of hybrid system involved response times, velocity and acceleration of
angular acceleration, power consumption, weight of payload
Response time of motor operating in shoulder of arm was 120 ms +/- 10, delay
barely noticeable by operator
A typical range of values for the average angular velocity of a human arm has
been reported in the literature [12] to be 23[degrees]-50[degrees]/sec for relaxed,
36[degrees]-87[degrees]/sec for regular, and 122[degrees]-251[degrees]/sec for strained
quick movement. The equivalent ranges for average angular acceleration were
29[degrees]-41[degrees]/[sec.sup.2], 72[degrees]-135[degrees]/[sec.sup.2], and
721[degrees]-1151[degrees]/[sec.sup.2], respectively. These average values were
extracted from a series of experiments involving multiple subjects moving a horizontally
rotating handle, a task which combined shoulder, elbow, and wrist movements
Arm was capable of combining speed and acceleration that exceed that of a real
human arm, motion and smooth and feels natural, all parts necessary to operate arm can
be carried by single person
Arm weighs 5.9 kg (13 lb), measures 25 by 73.9 by 30.2 cm, reach of 46 cm (60%
of normal human reach of arm)
Maximum payload of 750 g, could easily be raised in future tests, only maintained
at this level to prevent any damage to arm
Powered by 24V DC power supply, peak current at 3.5 A +/- 0.1, average power
consumption at 25.3 W +/- 0.1 (all taken without arm being impeded by any extra weight,
while being impeded by gravity)
Plans to introduce feedback loop so operator can feel when arm touches objects
All testing of arm also done using a position sensing harness, worn around the
robotic arm, EPSH, measures 21 by 21.4 by 69 cm and weighed 3 kg
Hochberg, Leigh R., et al. Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled
robotic arm. Nature 485.7398 (2012): 372+. Science In Context. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
People with tetraplegia (an illness that results in the loss of motor function in the
limbs) control a robotic arm through neural activity
Neural signals recorded through an implant in the patients

 Patients used DLR Light-Weight Robot III (device that can reproduce complex
hand motions) and DEKA Arm system (prototype advanced upper limb replacement
designed for upper extremity amputees)
One patient controlled DEKA Arm in one day after sessions working on
controlling point and click movements on a computer through neural signals
Both patients were able to control arms with no previous experience in doing so
Patients used both robotic arms to perform testing sessions in which they were
required to touch/grasp a small ball by controlling the robotic arms
S3 touched the target within the allotted time in 48.8% of the DLR and 69.2% of
the DEKA trials, and T2 touched the target within the allotted time in 95.6% of trials
Of the successful touches, S3 grasped the target 43.6% (DLR) and 66.7%
(DEKA) of the time, whereas T2 grasped the target 65.1% of the time. Of all trials, S3
grasped the target 21.3% (DLR) and 46.2% (DEKA) of the time, and T2 grasped the
target 62.2% of the time.
S3 (female participant) was tasked with using DLR to pick a bottle of coffee up
off a table, bring it to her mouth and drink from it, and replace the bottle on the table. She
was able to do so after 15 minutes of being introduced to the task 4 out of 6 attempts,
which was the first time she could do so of her own ability since her stroke that took the
use of her upper limbs
S3 had received neural implant 5 years prior to these tests, 14 years after her
stroke, and showed minimal signs of neural signal disruption showing this method of
brainwave reading to be pretty effective

Data Collection Analysis

Source 1: Advances in neuroscopic and control (Carmena, J.M.)
This source provides a broad view of the technological advancements that have recently
been made in the field of prosthetic robotics. The most important current goal for robotic

prosthetics is to be able to control them neurologically and create a means in which the prosthetic
can be connected to the users central nervous system. This would allow a person to control a
prosthetic as if it was a natural part of them, but having the brain recognize a limb that is not an
actual part of the body is a major challenge that needs to be overcome. It also explains how
prosthetics could deliver a sense of touch to the use through a sensory feedback loop between the
prosthetic and the brain. The article then goes to explain the most feasible approaches in how to
connect the brain to a prosthetic: using a device to predict movement or having the brain learn
how to control the actuator, which would serve as a central nervous system. It concludes by
stating the final goals of robotic prosthetics, which would be to create an arm with the most
degrees of freedom to allow users to go about daily life as easily as possible, and to make sure
said arm would be simple enough that a user could learn how to control it in a reasonable time
period.
A large section of this article is dedicated to the topic on the relationship between the
prosthetic and the person using it. Many factors go into determining what would make a robotic
prosthetic effective or not. The article states that an arm with more actuated degrees of freedom
would allow for an arm that more closely resembles a real human arm, which would allow the
user to maintain as normal a life as possible. However, the article also talks about how more
complex tasks and motions can take people longer to learn due to the nature of what must be
completed. Simple tasks can be learned in a matter of days, but more complex tasks would
require more experience with using the prosthetic arm and could require lots of exposure before

they can be completed. The complexity of the arm itself also determines how long a user takes to
become efficient in using it as a regular arm. Therefore, while a prosthetic that has more degrees
of freedom would provide for a more realistic range of motion, it would also be much harder for
the user to be able to use and understand due to the complexity of an arm that is capable of
moving in so many ways and motions. It can be inferred that a simpler prosthetic would be
relatively easy to learn how to use and control, but at the cost of a great limitation as to what
movements can be completed with the arm. The more actuators within the prosthetic, the more
complex the prosthetic becomes as the human brain would be required to learn how to control
and move each individual prosthetic in a human way, and the harder it would be for said human
to learn how to use and move the arm naturally. This can lead to further research in seeing how
quickly people could learn how to control very simple prosthetics as opposed to very complex
ones, to see the benefits and drawbacks of each. It may be possible in the future that when people
get prosthetic arms, they start with very basic ones and learn how to effectively control them
before being upgraded to a more complex model that is more difficult to use but provides more
motion to the user.

Source 2: Novel motors give robotic hands a more human touch: new small partial motor design
offers very high power, torque and control flexibility for implementing robotic fingers and hands
(Presher, A.)

This source focused specifically on the motors that are used in robotic prosthetics, and
how more advanced motors could benefit prosthetics in a multitude of ways. The availability of
motors that are both small and compact yet capable of creating high torques and forces is a major
obstacle in creating robotic prosthetics that are as similar to human limbs as possible. The best
solution to this problem is direct drive servo technology and a partial motor concept, but these
motors, while allowing the same movements as regular human fingers, weigh about 350 grams
and are 1.5 times bigger than the average male human finger. The reason why creating humanlike fingers is so difficult is because the need for this technology is very new, since robots have
never needed human-like hands and typically work with pneumatic controlled grippers or
something similar. Human fingers are also capable of exerting a large amount of force compared
to their size, which is very hard to replicate mechanically because small motors simply cannot
recreate these amounts of force. The article then introduces a robotic finger prototype called the
SMAC, which is a robotic finger consisting of three motors that is capable of replicating 80% of
the motion and force of a real human finger. The finger can recognize surfaces and utilize
programmed forces in order to gently come into contact with the surface and create desired
movements. Controllers and amplifiers in the axis of each joint in the finger can store up to 50
programs that allow the finger to move in a multitude of desired ways.
The article clearly states that this version of a robotic finger is actuated through a direct
drive servo and a partial motor, which allow the finger to move and create force very similar to
that of a real human finger. However, the main problem of these motors is that they are too

bulky, as a whole hand made out of the fingers would be too big to suit the average male adult,
much less females or younger people. The motors are also not entirely capable of producing the
same movements and force outputs that a regular human finger can, imposing severe limitations
on what a prosthetic using SMAC fingers would be capable of. While this method of actuating
the fingers may be good given the current technology available, more advanced motors would be
needed in order to shrink the size of the fingers while at the same time making them stronger and
more flexible. Even then, the fingers might not be suitable for young adolescents or most
females, whose body types would be too small to proportionally accommodate such a prosthetic.
While this combination of servo and motor is not actually a type of actuator at all, it seems to be
made specifically for the need of technology that can create human-like motion, and requires
more refinement to be useful to all people. The article concluded by stating the future goals for
the SMAC prototype are to reduce the size of the motors and increase their pressure output,
although how this can be done is a problem yet to be solved and could be a severe limitation on
the research of the SMAC prototype in the future if it can not be done soon and effectively.

Source 3: Towards brain-computer interface control of a 6-degree-of-freedom robotic arm using

dry EEG electrodes (Astaras, A., Moustakas, N., Athanasiou, A., & Gogoussis, A.)

This source covers the use of brain-computer interfaces to control robotic prosthetic that
contains six degrees of motion and is equipped with an electromechanical gripper operated by
two servo motors. The brain-computer interface (or BCI) in the experiment this journal covers
were two different types of headsets worn by the users of the prosthetics that read brain waves
and translate them to the arm where they are converted into physical movement. Headsets were
chosen because they are minimally invasive and relatively cheap, although their signal reading
strength can be weak and unreliable. The effectiveness of this system was tested through
response times of the arm, velocity and acceleration of angular acceleration, power consumption,
and payload the arm was capable of lifting. The results of the test found the robotic arm to nearly
match and in some cases exceed the speeds and abilities of a real human arm in terms of velocity
and response time of the arm. However, it was also noted that the max payload the arm carried in
the testing phase was 750 grams, and though this was only to prevent any damage to the
prosthetic, it could easily be raised in future testing. The arm itself also weighed about 13 pounds
and only had 60% of the reach of a normal human arm. The journal concludes by speculating on
future plans, which would include introducing a feedback loop system in order to provide the
user with a sense of touch through the prosthetic arm.
The arm used in testing contained six degrees of freedom: two for the shoulder joint for
right-left and up-down movements, one for the elbow, one for the wrist, and two for shoulderelbow rotation and elbow-wrist rotation. This is a fairly complicated system that would require
ample practice to control, but since the hand was only composed of a gripper as opposed to real

fingers, it would be significantly easier to control than a full-blown prosthetic human arm. The
arm was also only tested at a maximum payload of 750 grams, which is less than two pounds.
Although the authors indicated this was only to prevent damage to the prosthetic, this could
imply that the servo motors actuating the movement of the arm are not strong enough to allow
people to go about daily living, as the average person would need to be able to lift more than two
pounds without risking damage to the arm. This could imply that a combination of stronger
actuators are required to improve the arm and make it more capable of assisting the user in
completing daily tasks. Also, the arm was recorded to weigh about 13 pounds. The average
human arm weighs around 5% of their total body weight, meaning a 13 pound arm would
typically be found on an individual weighing roughly 245 pounds. This means that the arm is far
too heavy for any average sized person, and given the fact the arm was only capable of 60% of
the average human arms reach, much optimization will be needed to balance this out. The
components of the arm are too heavy, so building it with a more lightweight and durable material
or using smaller yet stronger actuators with only a few large actuators to help extend the arm
(most likely in the bicep and forearm) could help the arm maintain strength and extend its length.
Finally, all experiments done were done with the assistance of an arm-harness known as an
EPSH which helped to read all movements made by the arm. This would be highly
unconventional in the real world, so it would be necessary to remove this crutch while still
allowing the arm to operate accurately before it could be implemented into everyday human life.
To conclude, based off the information found in this source and the last, an effort to create a

smaller but stronger actuator or motor would be highly beneficial to robotic prosthetic
technology by allowing lighter and stronger arms to be created.
Source 4: Reach and grasp by people with tetraplegia using a neurally controlled robotic arm
(Hochberg, Leigh R.)
This source was a journal written to detail the studies done in a set of experiments
involving to tetraplegia patients, referred to as S3 and T2, operating robotic prosthetics through
neural activity. The patients neural activity was read through implants in the patients, which
allowed for strong signals in reading neural activity and high accuracy of said activity. The two
arms tested by the patients were the DEKA Arm and the DLR Light-Weight Robot III. After
computer training involving point and click movements on a computer, both patients were
successful in controlling both arms with no prior experience in operating robotic arms. The
patients underwent tests using both arms that involved moving the arm at certain complex angles
and positions in space to touch and grasp a small ball to assess motor abilities. Both patients
were able to complete this test with varying degrees of accuracy using both arms, although both
patients showed a higher ability using the DEKA Arm than with the DLR Light-Weight Robot
III. One patient was even able to use the DLR Light-Weight Robot III to pick a bottle of coffee
up off a table and bring it to her mouth, which she did successfully in four out of six attempts to
do so in fifteen minutes; this was the first time in fifteen years (since the patient suffered a stroke
that rendered her unable to use her arms) that the patient could complete a task like this of her
own ability.

These tests show both the high efficiency of the arms used and the implants, which were
recorded of showing very little brainwave disruptive, something that would be essential in the
real world. Although this is more invasive and expensive to do than the methods mentioned in
the previous source, the consistently high output as a result makes it a much better choice for
people who need robotic prosthetics to continue a normal life. The high success rate of the
accuracy of both arms during testing (S3 completed touch test in 48.8% of DLR trials and in
69.2% of DEKA trials, and T2 completed touch test in 95.6% of DEKA trials) imply that both
are mostly successful in design and might only require minimal improvement in the future.