Anthropomorphism Indexes of the Kinematic Chain for Artificial Hands
Tóm tắt
Anthropomorphic hands have received increasing research interest in the fields of robotics and prosthetics. But it is not yet clear how to evaluate their anthropomorphism. Similarity in the kinematic chain is essential to achieve both functionality and cosmesis. A few previous works have addressed the definition of anthropomorphism indexes, although they have some limitations in its definition. In this study, three different anthropomorphism indexes have been defined to compare the kinematic chain of artificial hands with that of the human hand. These indexes are based on the comparison of: (1) the parameters of the kinematic chain (dimensions, type of joints, orientations and ranges of motion), (2) the reachable workspace, and (3) common grasping postures. Five artificial hands with different degrees of anthropomorphism have been compared using the three Anthropomorphism Indexes of the Kinematic Chain (AIKC). The results show a high correlation between the first and third AIKC for the hands compared. The second AIKC presents much lower values than the other two, although they are higher for hands that combine abduction/adduction and flexion/extension movements in the kinematic chain of each finger. These indexes can be useful during the initial stage of designing artificial hands or evaluating their anthropomorphism.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Parada Puig J E, Rodriguez N E N, Ceccarelli M. A methodology for the design of robotic hands with multiple fingers. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2008, 5, 177–184.
Kemp C, Edsinger A, Torres-Jara E. Challenges for robot manipulation in human environments [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 2007, 14, 20–29.
Liarokapis M V, Artemiadis P K, Kyriakopoulos K J. Functional Anthropomorphism for human to robot motion mapping. Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Paris, France, 2012, 31–36.
Belter J T, Segil J L, Dollar A M, Weir R F. Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: A review. The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2013, 50, 599–618.
ten Kate J, Smit G, Breedveld P. 3D-printed upper limb prostheses: A review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2017, 12, 300–314.
Gibbard J. Open Hand Project, [2018-03-01], www.openhandproject.org
Gibbard J, Payne S, Open Bionics, [2018-03-01], www.openbionics.com
Duong T, Wagner B, Abraham T, Davidson M, Bains G, Daher N, Friedrich A. Comparative study of functional grasp and efficiency between a 3D-printed and commercial myoelectric transradial prosthesis using able-bodied subjects: A pilot study. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 2017, 29, 112–118.
Andrychowicz M, Baker B, Chociej M, Józefowicz R, McGrew B, Pachocki J, Petron A, Plappert M, Powell G, Ray A, Schneider J, Sidor S, Tobin J, Welinder P, Weng L, Zaremba W. Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation. International Journal of Robotics Research, 2019, 39, 3–20.
Li S, Ma X J, Liang H Z, Gorner M, Ruppel P, Fang B, Sun F C, Zhang J W. Vision-based teleoperation of shadow dexterous hand using end-to-end deep neural network. Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Montreal, Canada, 2019, 416–422.
Simon A M, Turner K L, Miller L A, Hargrove L J, Kuiken T A. Pattern recognition and direct control home use of a multi-articulating hand prosthesis. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, Toronto, Canada, 2019, 386–391.
ÖSSUR. I-Limb, [2019-12-01], https://www.ossur.com/en-us/prosthetics/arms/i-limb-ultra
Greenhill R, Elias H. Shadow Dexterous Hand, [2018-03-01], https://www.shadowrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/shadow_dexterous_hand_technical_specification_E_20150827.pdf
Craig J J. Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control, 3rd, Prentice Hall, 2004, 1, 408.
Biagiotti L, Lotti F, Melchiorri C, Vassura G. How Far is the Human Hand? A Review on Anthropomorphic Robotic End-effectors, University of Bologna, Internal Report, Italy, 2004.
Jiang L, Liu Y, Yang D, Liu H. A synthetic framework for evaluating and designing an anthropomorphic prosthetic hand. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2018, 15, 69–82.
Llop-Harillo I, Pérez-González A, Gracia-Ibáñez V. Anthropomorphism index of mobility for artificial hands. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 2019, 2019, 7169034.
Feix T, Romero J, Ek C H, Schmiedmayer H B, Kragic D. A metric for comparing the anthropomorphic motion capability of artificial hands. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2013, 29, 82–93.
Liarokapis M V, Artemiadis P K, Kyriakopoulos K J. Quantifying anthropomorphism of robot hands. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2013, 2041–2046.
Kapandji I A. The Physiology of the Joints: Upper Limb, Churchill Livingstone, New York, USA, 1982.
Santos V J, Valero-Cuevas F J. Reported anatomical variability naturally leads to multimodal distributions of denavit-hartenberg parameters for the human thumb. IEEE 155–163.
Sancho-Bru J L. Model Biomecànic de La Mà Orientat Al Disseny D’eines Manuals, PhD Thesis, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain 2000. (in Valencian)
Peña-Pitarch E, Falguera N T, Yang J. Virtual human hand: Model and kinematics. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 2014, 17, 568–579.
Cobos S, Ferre M, Sanchez Uran M A, Ortego J, Pena C. Efficient human hand kinematics for manipulation tasks. Proceedings of 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Nice, France, 2008, 2246–2251.
León B, Morales A, Sancho-Bru J. From Robot to Human Grasping Simulation, Springer International Publishing, 2014.
Hartenberg R S, Denavit J. A kinematic notation for lower-pair mechanisms based on matrices. Transactions of the ASME — Journal of Applied Mechanics, 1955, 22, 215–221.
Wu G, Cavanagh P R. ISB recommendations for standardization in the reporting of kinematic data. Journal of Biomechanics, 1995, 28, 1257–1261.
Huynh D Q. Metrics for 3D rotations: Comparison and analysis. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 2009, 35, 155–164.
Soucacos P N. Indications and selection for digital amputation and replantation. Journal of Hand Surgery, 2001, 26 572–581.
Dermitzakis K, Ioannides A, Lin H T. Robotic thumb grasp-based range of motion optimization. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS), 2013, 3163–3166
Barber C B, Dobkin D P, Huhdanpaa H. The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 1996, 22, 469–483.
Edelsbrunner H. Alpha shapes — A survey. Tessellations in the Sciences, 2010, 1–25.
Townsend W. Barrett Hand, [2018-03-01], https://advanced.barrett.com/barretthand.
Andrés F J, Pérez-González A, Rubert C, Fuentes J, Sospedra B. Comparison of grasping performance of tendon and linkage transmission systems in an electric-powered low-cost hand prosthesis. Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 2019, 11, 011018.
Llop-Harillo I, Pérez-González A. System for the experimental evaluation of anthropomorphic hands. Application to a new 3D-printed prosthetic hand prototype. International Biomechanics, 2017, 4, 50–59.
Stillfried G, Hillenbrand U, Settles M, van der Smagt P. MRI-Based skeletal hand movement model. In: Balasubramanian R, Santos V J, eds., The Human Hand as an Inspiration for Robot Hand Development, Springer International Publishing, 2014, 49–75.
Coupier J, Hamoudi S, Telese-Izzi S, Feipel V, Rooze M, Van Sint Jan S. A novel method for in-vivo evaluation of finger kinematics including definition of healthy motion patterns. Clinical Biomechanics, 2016, 31, 47–58.
Gracia-Ibáñez V, Vergara M, Sancho-Bru J L, Mora M C, Piqueras C. Functional range of motion of the hand joints in activities of the international classification of functioning, disability and health. Journal of Hand Therapy, 2017, 30, 337–347.