Right, that’s my little joke done.

Appendix 1 - Mission Brief

A Bio-Electronic Interface to a Bionic Hand incorporating finger tip pressure sensors.

Outline of Problem:

Advances in materials, electronics, micro-controllers, batteries and a better understanding of how cells work have revolutionised the area of bionic limbs. This project will look at the various methods that can be used to control a bionic limb and in particular how feedback can help with precise control functions.

Scope of Investigation:

1. 1.What electrical signals are produced by the body that can be interfaced to state of the art electronics?
   

2. 2.Can these signals be processed by a computer and be made to control an external device such as a small motor?
   

3. 3.Can external sensor be added that made the control of the external device more reliable and more precise?
   

4. 4.Look at ways of adding vibration or electrical feedback to help the user have more control of the bionic hand.
   

Deliverables:

1. •A detailed assessment of the current state of bionic limb development.
   

2. •An evaluation of the current and future technologies that could be used for bionic limb manufacture.
   

3. •Develop a working prototype of a bionic limb with sensor feedback control.
   

Appendix 2 - Smart Hand Report

Final Report - SMARTHAND (The smart Bio-adaptive Hand prosthesis)

Abstract: SMARTHAND was a highly innovative, interdisciplinary project, combining forefront research from material sciences, bio- and information technologies with cognitive neuroscience to solve a major societal problem; namely, the development of an artificial hand displaying all the basic features of a real human hand. The successful realisation of this highly visionary project required crossing the boundaries of distinct scientific fields, merging forefront expertise of the consortium combines and use of state-of-the-art research results from relevant fields, to improve quality of life for disabilities by improving mobility and diminishing phantom pains associated with amputees. 

the SMARTHAND prosthesis could have major impacts on rehabilitation of amputates. People that have lived through a traumatic amputation often encounter severe depressions as a result of a distorted self-image and fear for social rejection. Further is it also common with phantom pains, forcing the amputee taking heavy painkillers and thus complicating a comeback to the labour market. However, it has been shown that electric stimulation of the nerves has a positive and pain killing effect. We believed that a neural interface with recording and stimulating capability could significantly improving quality of life by relieving the phantom pains. Furthermore, the functional artificial hand could help to restore self-image and social acceptance by the user. An artificial hand or the robotic hand that restores functionality could be of great importance for rehabilitating disabled amputees back to work. 

The SMARTHAND smart bio-adaptive hand prosthesis does more than just replicate the physical functionality of a real human hand. The SMARTHAND also uses a unique technology to provide the user with a measure of sensation when using the SMARTHAND. The robotic hand has forty sensors that are activated when pressed on by an object. These sensors are connected to the patients' remaining nerves in the upper arm; the stimulus can be interpreted by the brain as coming from the SMARTHAND. 

Extensive studies were done on six non-amputees and five amputees investigating sensibility substitution in functional prosthesis, body ownership of the artificial hand and motor control of the SMARTHAND early prototype. The study was a joint effort and external partner supported some of the studies. The external partners were the Red Cross Hospital in Stockholm and the Orthopaedic Department at Lund University hospital. Further subjects were studied in task 'Cortical integration of the artificial hand'. Activation of somatosensory cortex has been investigated in 6 amputees and 15 non amputees have been investigated, subjected to fMRI-investigation. 

Robin af Ekenstam, an amputee from Sweden, was astounded by the result. An aggressive tumour discovered on his right wrist forced Mr af Ekenstam to amputate his limb in order to save his life and stop the cancer from spreading to the rest of his body. He currently wears an electronic hook, but the problem with this device is that he cannot feel what the hook does and handling is at a minimum. 

'I am using muscles which I haven't used for years,' television news channel euronews quoted Mr af Ekenstam, the first amputee to try the hand, as saying. 'That is very hard. But if you are able to control a movement, it is great. It is a feeling that I have not had for a long time. And now I am also getting the sensation back from small motors, which put pressure on certain spots on my hand,' he said. 'When I grab something hard, then I can feel it in the fingertips, which is strange, as I don't have them anymore. It's amazing.' 

The organisation of control of grasping of various objects has been studied with healthy individuals in conditions where the visual input was modified. A system utilising this was developed and thus the type of grasp was deseeded with the help of the video camera and laser pointer, while timing of the grasps opening and closing was done by using muscle signals. 

Finally the SMARTHAND prosthesis systems where investigated and evaluated in different tests involving both amputees and non amputees. The different parts developed in SMARTHAND was integrated and tested together. The final SMARTHAND prosthesis was evaluated using eight amputees and the outcome was very positive.

Contact: Mr. Frederik Sebelius, Lunds Universitet, Sweden

Souce: http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=RESULINK_EN&ACTION=D&RCN=47291

Appendix 3 - Rubber Hand Illusion

Summary

We describe how upper limb amputees can be made to experience a rubber hand as part of their own body. This was accomplished by applying synchronous touches to the stump, which was out of view, and to the index finger of a rubber hand, placed in full view (26 cm medial to the stump). This elicited an illusion of sensing touch on the artificial hand, rather than on the stump and a feeling of ownership of the rubber hand developed. This effect was supported by quantitative subjective reports in the form of questionnaires, behavioural data in the form of misreaching in a pointing task when asked to localize the position of the touch, and physiological evidence obtained by skin conductance responses when threatening the hand prosthesis. Our findings outline a simple method for transferring tactile sensations from the stump to a prosthetic limb by tricking the brain, thereby making an important contribution to the field of neuroprosthetics where a major goal is to develop artificial limbs that feel like a real parts of the body.

Extracts – Illustrations and Captions

The results of the questionnaire. The responses to Questions 1–3 reflect the experiences of the illusion: Q1—‘I felt the touch of the brush on the prosthetic hand’; ‘Q2—It seemed as if the brush caused the sensation touch that I experienced’; Q3—It felt as if the prosthetic hand was my hand’. The responses to Questions 4–9 served as controls for suggestibility and task compliance (see Methods section). The scores for the illusion questions (Q1–Q3) were significantly greater (P < 0.01) than those for the control conditions after the period of synchronous stimulation on the stump and the prosthetic hand (blue). Further, on average, the scores on the three illusion-related questions were greater in the stump condition than in the control condition when contralateral intact arm was stimulated (P < 0.05). Finally, it can be noted that the illusion ratings when stroking the participants’ stumps were lower than when testing the classical rubber hand illusion by stroking their intact contralateral hand (yellow). For details, see the Results section.

Behavioural evidence that people perceived a change in the location of the sensation of touch from the stump (and phantom in the cases of referred sensations) towards the rubber hand. When asked to indicate where they had sensed the touches of the paintbrush, by pointing with the intact hand with their eyes closed, the participant indicated greater drift in the perceived location of the touch towards the rubber hand after the illusion condition with synchronous stimulation (Sync) than after the asynchronous control condition (Async; P < 0.05).

Objective physiological evidence that the participants experienced an increase in the ownership of the

prosthetic hand when we brushed the stump and the prosthetic hand synchronously. Greater psychologically induced sweating, as measured with the skin conductance response (in micro Sievert), was observed when the prosthetic hand was stabbed with a needle in the illusion condition (sync-stump) than in the asynchronous control condition (async-stump; P < 0.05).

Source: Oxford Journals - Brain

Webpage: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/12/3443.full#sec-9

Appendix 4 - NXT Program Schematic

download the NXT Program Schematic Program.png

Appendix 5 - FSR Integration Guide

Source: http://resenv.media.mit.edu/classes/MAS836/Readings/fsrguide.pdf

Page 5,6,7 “An Overview of the Technology”

Appendix 6 - Feedback PICAXE Program