Function-oriented optimization design method for underactuated tendon-driven humanoid prosthetic hand

Abstract

The loss of hand functions in upper limb amputees severely restricts their mobility in daily life. Wearing a humanoid prosthetic hand would be an effective way of restoring lost hand functions. In a prosthetic hand design, replicating the natural and dexterous grasping functions with a few actuators remains a big challenge. In this study, a function-oriented optimization design (FOD) method is proposed for the design of a tendon-driven humanoid prosthetic hand. An optimization function of different functional conditions of full-phalanx contact, total contact force, and force isotropy was constructed based on the kinetostatic model of a prosthetic finger for the evaluation of grasping performance. Using a genetic algorithm, the optimal geometric parameters of the prosthetic finger could be determined for specific functional requirements. Optimal results reveal that the structure of the prosthetic finger is significantly different when designed for different functional requirements and grasping target sizes. A prosthetic finger was fabricated and tested with grasping experiments. The mean absolute percentage error between the theoretical value and the experimental result is less than 10%, demonstrating that the kinetostatic model of the prosthetic finger is effective and makes the FOD method possible. This study suggests that the FOD method enables the systematic evaluation of grasping performance for prosthetic hands in the design stage, which could improve the design efficiency and help prosthetic hands meet the design requirements.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

function-oriented / tendon driven / prosthetic hand / optimization / humanoid / underactuated

References

[1] Atkins D J, Heard D C Y, Donovan W H. Epidemiologic overview of individuals with upper-limb loss and their reported research priorities. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 1996, 8(1): 2–11

[2] Cifu D X. Braddom’s Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 6th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2020, 153–173

[3] Bullock I M, Borràs J, Dollar A M. Assessing assumptions in kinematic hand models: a review. In: Proceedings of 2012 the 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. Piscataway: IEEE, 2012, 139–146

[4] Calado A, Soares F, Matos D. A review on commercially available anthropomorphic myoelectric prosthetic hands, pattern-recognition-based microcontrollers and sEMG sensors used for prosthetic control. In: Proceedings of 2019 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC). Piscataway: IEEE, 2019, 1–6

[5] Gu Y K, Yang D P, Huang Q, Yang W, Liu H. Robust EMG pattern recognition in the presence of confounding factors: features, classifiers and adaptive learning. Expert Systems with Applications, 2018, 96: 208–217

[6] Zheng Y, Li X X, Tian L, Li G L. Design of a low-cost and humanoid myoelectric prosthetic hand driven by a single actuator to realize basic hand functions. In: Proceedings of 2018 IEEE International Conference on Cyborg and Bionic Systems (CBS). Shenzhen: IEEE, 2018, 603–606

[7] Pylatiuk C, Mounier S, Kargov A, Bretthauer G. Progress in the development of a multifunctional hand prosthesis. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. San Francisco: IEEE, 2004, 4260–4263

[8] Kashef S R, Amini S, Akbarzadeh A. Robotic hand: a review on linkage-driven finger mechanisms of prosthetic hands and evaluation of the performance criteria. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2020, 145: 103677

[9] Gu G Y, Zhang N B, Xu H P, Lin S T, Yu Y, Chai G H, Ge L S, Yang H L, Shao Q W, Sheng X J, Zhu X Y, Zhao X H. A soft neuroprosthetic hand providing simultaneous myoelectric control and tactile feedback. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 2021, 1–10

[10] Belter J T, Segil J L, Dollar A M, Weir R F. Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a review. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2013, 50(5): 599–618

[11] ten Kate J, Smit G, Breedveld P. 3D-printed upper limb prostheses: a review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 2017, 12(3): 300–314

[12] Boisclair J M, Laliberté T, Gosselin C. On the optimal design of underactuated fingers using rolling contact joints. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2021, 6(3): 4656–4663

[13] Kochan A. Shadow delivers first hand. Industrial Robot, 2005, 32(1): 15–16

[14] Llop-Harillo I, Pérez-González A, Andrés-Esperanza J. Grasping ability and motion synergies in affordable tendon-driven prosthetic hands controlled by able-bodied subjects. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 2020, 14: 57

[15] Kragten G A, Herder J L. The ability of underactuated hands to grasp and hold objects. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2010, 45(3): 408–425

[16] Birglen L, Laliberté T, Gosselin C. Underactuated Robotic Hands. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, 40: 33–60

[17] Garate V R, Pozzi M, Prattichizzo D, Tsagarakis N, Ajoudani A. Grasp stiffness control in robotic hands through coordinated optimization of pose and joint stiffness. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2018, 3(4): 3952–3959

[18] Clark A B, Liow L, Rojas N. Force evaluation of tendon routing for underactuated grasping. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2021, 143(10): 104502

[19] Birglen L, Gosselin C M. Optimal design of 2-phalanx underactuated fingers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Manipulation and Grasping. Citeseer, 2004, 110–116

[20] Dalley S A, Wiste T E, Withrow T J, Goldfarb M. Design of a multifunctional anthropomorphic prosthetic hand with extrinsic actuation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2009, 14(6): 699–706

[21] Pons J L, Rocon E, Ceres R, Reynaerts D, Saro B, Levin S, Van Moorleghem W. The MANUS-HAND dextrous robotics upper limb prosthesis: mechanical and manipulation aspects. Autonomous Robots, 2004, 16(2): 143–163

[22] Cipriani C, Controzzi M, Carrozza M C. Objectives, criteria and methods for the design of the SmartHand transradial prosthesis. Robotica, 2010, 28(6): 919–927

[23] Jing X B, Yong X, Jiang Y L, Li G L, Yokoi H. Anthropomorphic prosthetic hand with combination of light weight and diversiform motions. Applied Sciences, 2019, 9(20): 4203

[24] Bennett D A, Dalley S A, Truex D, Goldfarb M. A multigrasp hand prosthesis for providing precision and conformal grasps. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2015, 20(4): 1697–1704

[25] Gaiser I N, Pylatiuk C, Schulz S, Kargov A, Oberle R, Werner T. The FLUIDHAND III: a multifunctional prosthetic hand. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, 2009, 21(2): 91–96

[26] Krausz N E, Rorrer R A L, Weir R F f. Design and fabrication of a six degree-of-freedom open source hand. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 2016, 24(5): 562–572

[27] Birglen L, Gosselin C M. Geometric design of three-phalanx underactuated fingers. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2006, 128(2): 356–364

[28] Birglen L. Design of a partially-coupled self-adaptive robotic finger optimized for collaborative robots. Autonomous Robots, 2019, 43(2): 523–538

[29] Inouye J M, Valero-Cuevas F J. Anthropomorphic tendon-driven robotic hands can exceed human grasping capabilities following optimization. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2014, 33(5): 694–705

[30] Birglen L, Gosselin C M. Kinetostatic analysis of underactuated fingers. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2004, 20(2): 211–221

Nomenclature

Abbreviations
DIP	Distal interphalangeal
DOF	Degree of freedom
FOD	Function-oriented optimization design
GA	Genetic algorithm
IP	Interphalangeal
MAPE	Mean absolute percentage error
MCP	Metacarpophalangeal
MOC	Main optimization condition
PIP	Proximal interphalangeal
Variables
d_{ji}	Distance from joint j to the centre of mass of phalanx i
EI	Optimization function index
E_j	Experimental force values of phalanges (j = 1, 2, 3)
F_{\mathrm{a}}	Actuation force of the prosthetic finger
F, Fi	Phalanx force (i = 1, 2, 3)
Gi	Gravity of the phalanx (i = 1, 2, 3)
I1, I2, I3	Index of full-phalanx contact, total contact force and force isotropy, respectively
Iimoc	Index Ii is the main optimization condition
J	Transformational matrix relates to the contact position and friction
k, kj	Spring elasticity coefficient (j = 1, 2, 3)
L, Li	Phalanx length (i = 1, 2, 3)
MAPEi	Mean absolute percentage error of the phalanx (i = 1, 2, 3)
n	Number of prosthetic phalanges
nT	Total number of testing positions
P, Pi	Contact position (i = 1, 2, 3)
r, ri	Joint radius (i = 1, 2, 3)
R, Ri	Transmission ratio (i = 1, 2, 3)
Ta	Actuation torque of the prosthetic finger
Tj	Theoretical force valus of the phalanx (j = 1, 2, 3)
t	Transformational matrix relates to spring coefficients and joint angle
T	Transformational matrix relates to the transmission ratio
W1, W2, W3	Weight distribution of index I1, I2, and I3, respectively
w	Workspace of the prosthetic finger
θ, θi	Joint angle (i = 1, 2, 3)
µ, µi	Surface friction coefficient (i = 1, 2, 3)
ε, εi	Phalanx thickness (i = 1, 2, 3)
ηi	Correlation coefficient (i = 1, 2, 3)

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province, China (Grant No. 2020B0909020004), the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2020YFC2007900), and the Shenzhen Science and Technology Program, China (Grant No. CJGJZD20200617103002006).

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2022 Higher Education Press 2022