Chronic use of a sensitized bionic hand does not remap the sense of touch

Main text

Manual interactions with objects give rise to a barrage of neural signals from the skin about the objects themselves – their size, shape, and texture – and about our interactions with them – contact timing, force, and location (Johansson and Flanagan, 2009). Without these tactile signals, dexterous manipulation would be severely impaired, as evidenced by the deficits resulting from digital anesthesia or deafferentation (Johansson et al., 1992). The importance of tactile feedback in manual behavior has spurred the development of strategies to convey tactile signals in bionic hands. One promising approach to sensory restoration is to establish an electrical interface with the residual nerve through chronically implanted electrodes, as microstimulation of the nerve evokes vivid sensations experienced on the phantom hand (Clippinger et al., 1974; Ortiz-Catalan et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2014; George et al., 2019; Petrini et al., 2019).

In principle, the more naturalistic are these artificially induced neural signals, the more intuitive will the resulting sensations be (Saal and Bensmaia, 2015; Valle et al., 2018; George et al., 2019). The most straightforward application of this principle of biomimicry is somatotopic mapping: As stimulation through a given electrode evokes a percept that is localized to a specific patch of skin, connecting a sensor on the corresponding part of the bionic hand to that electrode is likely to convey intuitive information about contact location (Saal and Bensmaia, 2015). For instance, if stimulation through an electrode gives rise to a sensation on the index fingertip, it stands to reason to connect the index fingertip sensor to that electrode: Anytime the bionic index fingertip touches an object, the subject will experience a sensation on their fingertip and will thus know where contact was initiated without having to think about it (Dhillon and Horch, 2005).

The problem with the somatotopic mapping strategy is that, in practice, the projection field associated with each electrode – the region of the phantom on which the sensation is experienced when current is delivered through that electrode – is idiosyncratically determined by the location of the electrode on or in the nerve, and cannot be prearranged by the implanting surgeon. As a result, a given electrode array may not impinge on some hand regions – one or more fingertips, e.g. – where most contact with objects occurs (Christel et al., 1998).

If one cannot control the location of the projection fields, one might hope to relocate them after implantation. Indeed, when the limb region of somatosensory cortex is deafferented through amputation, this deafferented cortex can be activated via touch applied to other body regions (Pons et al., 1991) and amputation of a digit leads to an increase in the neural territory that can be activated through tactile stimulation of adjacent digits (Merzenich et al., 1984). These findings have been interpreted as evidence that body maps may be malleable. Moreover, the repeated pairing of a tactile experience with a visual touch applied to an extracorporeal object leads to the fusing of the two sensory experiences (Botvinick and Cohen, 1998). One might thus hope that the visual experience of touching one part of the bionic hand – where a touch sensor is located – paired with a timely tactile sensation to another part of the phantom hand – the projected field of an electrode – will lead to a shift in the perceived location of the sensation, driven by a reorganization of the body map in the brain.

To test this hypothesis, three unilateral transhumeral amputees were instrumented with a neuromusculoskeletal prosthetic arm and hand (Ortiz-Catalan et al., 2014, 2020) (Figure 1A). The hand was controlled via electromyographic signals measured using electrodes implanted on the muscles (Ortiz-Catalan et al., 2012). Moreover, tactile feedback was conveyed by electrically stimulating the median or ulnar nerves (Mastinu et al., 2017). Activation of a sensor located on the prosthetic thumb drove electrical stimulation through one electrode contact – dubbed here the “feedback contact” – implanted around the ulnar (Participant 1) and median (Participants 2 and 3) nerves. Participants lived with this closed-loop myoelectrically controlled bionic hand and used it to performed activities of daily living for up to three years.

Participants wore the prosthesis every day while awake, except when showering or swimming, based on verbal reports and onboard usage tracking (mean daily usage hours: 18.4, 15.4, and, 13.1 hours for P1, P2, and P3, respectively). The hand was actuated throughout the day as well, as evidenced by tens of minutes of use for each participant (Figure 1B), implying more than 100 grasping actions per day (assuming each grasping movement lasts an average of a few seconds).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis used in daily life. A| Participant wearing a neuromusculoskeletal prosthesis connected to his skeleton, nerves, and muscles. Implanted electrodes on muscles and nerves are used for control (red) and sensory feedback (blue), respectively. The interface between internal and external components of the bionic hand is through an osseointegrated implant into the bone. B| Cumulative time of prosthetic actuation. C| Cumulative time per day of neurostimulation for each of the three participants. The prosthesis was worn all the time the participants were awake during the day.

Contact with the prosthetic thumb resulted in electrical stimulation of the nerve for up to 5 seconds at a time (the duration was capped for safety reasons). The frequency of the electrical stimulation was graded according to the sensor output to modulate the perceived magnitude (Ortiz-Catalan et al., 2020.; Dhillon and Horch, 2005; Tan et al., 2014; Graczyk et al., 2016), thereby conveying information about applied pressure. All three participants experienced extensive stimulation each day (mean daily stimulation duration: 20.3, 59.3, and 44.7 minutes for P1, P2, and P3, respectively, see Figure 1C).

The prosthetic hand allowed for superior grasping force precision and reliability when compared with conventional surface electrode control (Mastinu et al., 2019). Moreover, the sensory feedback proved beneficial for restoring grasping coordination and assisting corrective actions when grasping under uncertainty, for example when the weight of the object changed unexpectedly (Mastinu et al., n.d.). Additionally, long-term home-use of the tactile sensory feedback led to increased sensitivity to changes in electrical stimulation, as evidenced by improved pulse frequency discrimination (Ortiz-Catalan et al., 2020.). Furthermore, participants reported greater confidence in their prosthesis control as well as improved self-image and self-esteem, leading to better social relationships and increased participation in a wider range of activities. Participants also expressed increased embodiment of the bionic limb, claiming that it is “part of my body,” “it is my arm now,” or “I don’t carry it; it is me” (Ortiz-Catalan et al., 2020).

For at least one year prior to enabling electrical stimulation of the nerve, participants used their bionic hand without sensory feedback (Ortiz-Catalan et al., 2014). During this period, we tracked the location of the projected field of the different contacts on the cuff electrode. To this end, we periodically delivered microstimulation pulse trains through one of several contacts (3, 6, and 5 for P1, P2, and P3, respectively) – interleaved in random order – and interrogated the subject as to where the sensation was experienced. Results from the full mapping are reported elsewhere (Ortiz-Catalan et al., 2020; Ackerley et al., 2018). Here, we present results for the feedback contact, which was paired with the sensor.

Feedback contacts had projected fields located on the hypothenar (P1), proximal fingerpad of the thumb (P2), and the distal fingerpad of the middle finger (P3) (Figure 2A). The location of these projected fields remained consistent over repeated testing during the year preceding the pairing with the sensor (blue hues, Figure 2A,B). More importantly, and perhaps surprisingly, the location of the projected field did not change after pairing with the sensor (green hues, Figure 2A, B). That is, over the period of over one year, every time the participants’ prosthetic thumb contacted an object, they experienced a tactile sensation somewhere else on the hand and the location of that tactile sensation did not change. Periodic testing of the location of the projective field showed that it moved only slightly – typically a millimeter or less – from test to test (typically separated by weeks or months) (Figure 2B). Furthermore, the direction in which the projected field moved was random, as evidenced by vector strengths that were not significantly different from those expected if the direction of movement was uniformly distributed (Figure 2C).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

A| Location of the projection fields of the feedback electrodes over the course of the study. Gray dots represent the location of the projection fields measured on the session when sensory stimulation was activated for home use. Shades of blue and green illustrate the locations before and after this pairing, respectively. Time periods varied across participants: Participant 1 (P1), 27 months before and 28 months after stimulation; Participant 2 (P2), 10 months then 12 months; and Participant 3 (P3), 6 months then 12 months. B| Sequence of projected fields zoomed in for each participant. C| Angle and extent of the displacement of the projected field in consecutive measurements. One would expect the angle to be consistent if it was moving systematically toward the sensor, but angles were random (vector strength was not significantly different from what would be observed in the direction and extent of movement was random from measurement to measurement).

The location of the projection field of the feedback contact was thus remarkably stable, despite the chronic mismatch between the visual experience of contact location and its tactile counterpart. This fixedness is especially surprising given that the prosthesis was used on a daily basis and the sensory feedback was behaviorally relevant (Recanzone et al., 1993). The possibility remains that the visuo-tactile mismatch was not salient enough to promote plasticity. Indeed, the participants may not have looked at their bionic hand frequently enough to experience the visuo-tactile mismatch. Or perhaps contact timing during typical object interactions is consistent enough across bionic fingers that this mismatch was obscured. However two of the three projection fields were not on fingertips, so this is unlikely. Given these caveats, we cannot exclude the possibility that another approach to remap projection fields, for example by repeatedly pairing the electrical stimulus with a visual cue at the desired location of the projection field (Rognini et al., 2018), would lead to a remapping of the sensory experience. Furthermore, the projection field and the sensor location can become more tightly aligned through chronic home use of a prosthesis if these are somatotopically mapped to begin with (Cuberovic et al., n.d.; Schofield et al., 2020).

Nonetheless, our results suggest that the visuo-tactile mismatch does not resolve itself when participants perform activities of daily living with the bionic hand, even over an extended period. This finding is consistent with a view that sensory maps are highly stable in adulthood (Makin and Bensmaia, 2017) and cannot be meaningfully modified, even with prolonged exposure.

Materials and Methods

Funding

This work was supported by the Promobilia Foundation, the IngaBritt och Arne Lundbergs Foundation, VINNOVA, the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), and the European Research Council.

Competing Interests

The first and second author were partially funded by Integrum AB. The senior author reports no conflict of interest.