It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
During reaching actions, the human central nerve system (CNS) generates the trajectories that optimize effort and time. When there is an obstacle in the path, we make sure that our arm passes the obstacle with a sufficient margin. This comfort margin varies between individuals. When passing a fragile object, risk-averse individuals may adopt a larger margin by following the longer path than risk-prone people do. However, it is not known whether this variation is associated with a personalized cost function used for the individual optimal control policies and how it is represented in our brain activity. This study investigates whether such individual variations in evaluation criteria during reaching results from differentiated weighting given to energy minimization versus comfort, and monitors brain error-related potentials (ErrPs) evoked when subjects observe a robot moving dangerously close to a fragile object. Seventeen healthy participants monitored a robot performing safe, daring and unsafe trajectories around a wine glass. Each participant displayed distinct evaluation criteria on the energy efficiency and comfort of robot trajectories. The ErrP-BCI outputs successfully inferred such individual variation. This study suggests that ErrPs could be used in conjunction with an optimal control approach to identify the personalized cost used by CNS. It further opens new avenues for the use of brain-evoked potential to train assistive robotic devices through the use of neuroprosthetic interfaces.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Learning Algorithms and Systems Laboratory (LASA), Lausanne, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5333.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 2183 9049); The University of Texas at Austin, Chandra Family Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Austin, USA (GRID:grid.89336.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9924); The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Neurology, Austin, USA (GRID:grid.89336.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9924)
2 École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Learning Algorithms and Systems Laboratory (LASA), Lausanne, Switzerland (GRID:grid.5333.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 2183 9049)
3 The University of Texas at Austin, Chandra Family Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Austin, USA (GRID:grid.89336.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9924); The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Neurology, Austin, USA (GRID:grid.89336.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9924); The University of Texas at Austin, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Austin, USA (GRID:grid.89336.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9924); The University of Texas at Austin, Mulva Clinic for the Neurosciences, Austin, USA (GRID:grid.89336.37) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9924)