Marković, Marko

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Neurorobotics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","15"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Mouchoux, Jérémy; 1Applied Rehabilitation Technology Lab, Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Bravo-Cabrera, Miguel A.; 1Applied Rehabilitation Technology Lab, Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Dosen, Strahinja; 2Faculty of Medicine, Department of Health Science and Technology Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Schilling, Arndt F.; 1Applied Rehabilitation Technology Lab, Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Markovic, Marko; 1Applied Rehabilitation Technology Lab, Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Georg-August University, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.author","Mouchoux, Jérémy"],["dc.contributor.author","Bravo-Cabrera, Miguel A."],["dc.contributor.author","Dosen, Strahinja"],["dc.contributor.author","Schilling, Arndt F."],["dc.contributor.author","Markovic, Marko"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-02-01T10:31:40Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-02-01T10:31:40Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.date.updated","2022-02-09T13:20:13Z"],["dc.description.abstract","Semi-autonomous (SA) control of upper-limb prostheses can improve the performance and decrease the cognitive burden of a user. In this approach, a prosthesis is equipped with additional sensors (e.g., computer vision) that provide contextual information and enable the system to accomplish some tasks automatically. Autonomous control is fused with a volitional input of a user to compute the commands that are sent to the prosthesis. Although several promising prototypes demonstrating the potential of this approach have been presented, methods to integrate the two control streams (i.e., autonomous and volitional) have not been systematically investigated. In the present study, we implemented three shared control modalities (i.e., sequential, simultaneous , and continuous ) and compared their performance, as well as the cognitive and physical burdens imposed on the user. In the sequential approach, the volitional input disabled the autonomous control. In the simultaneous approach, the volitional input to a specific degree of freedom (DoF) activated autonomous control of other DoFs, whereas in the continuous approach, autonomous control was always active except for the DoFs controlled by the user. The experiment was conducted in ten able-bodied subjects, and these subjects used an SA prosthesis to perform reach-and-grasp tasks while reacting to audio cues (dual tasking). The results demonstrated that, compared to the manual baseline (volitional control only), all three SA modalities accomplished the task in a shorter time and resulted in less volitional control input. The simultaneous SA modality performed worse than the sequential and continuous SA approaches. When systematic errors were introduced in the autonomous controller to generate a mismatch between the goals of the user and controller, the performance of SA modalities substantially decreased, even below the manual baseline. The sequential SA scheme was the least impacted one in terms of errors. The present study demonstrates that a specific approach for integrating volitional and autonomous control is indeed an important factor that significantly affects the performance and physical and cognitive load, and therefore these should be considered when designing SA prostheses."],["dc.description.abstract","Semi-autonomous (SA) control of upper-limb prostheses can improve the performance and decrease the cognitive burden of a user. In this approach, a prosthesis is equipped with additional sensors (e.g., computer vision) that provide contextual information and enable the system to accomplish some tasks automatically. Autonomous control is fused with a volitional input of a user to compute the commands that are sent to the prosthesis. Although several promising prototypes demonstrating the potential of this approach have been presented, methods to integrate the two control streams (i.e., autonomous and volitional) have not been systematically investigated. In the present study, we implemented three shared control modalities (i.e., sequential, simultaneous , and continuous ) and compared their performance, as well as the cognitive and physical burdens imposed on the user. In the sequential approach, the volitional input disabled the autonomous control. In the simultaneous approach, the volitional input to a specific degree of freedom (DoF) activated autonomous control of other DoFs, whereas in the continuous approach, autonomous control was always active except for the DoFs controlled by the user. The experiment was conducted in ten able-bodied subjects, and these subjects used an SA prosthesis to perform reach-and-grasp tasks while reacting to audio cues (dual tasking). The results demonstrated that, compared to the manual baseline (volitional control only), all three SA modalities accomplished the task in a shorter time and resulted in less volitional control input. The simultaneous SA modality performed worse than the sequential and continuous SA approaches. When systematic errors were introduced in the autonomous controller to generate a mismatch between the goals of the user and controller, the performance of SA modalities substantially decreased, even below the manual baseline. The sequential SA scheme was the least impacted one in terms of errors. The present study demonstrates that a specific approach for integrating volitional and autonomous control is indeed an important factor that significantly affects the performance and physical and cognitive load, and therefore these should be considered when designing SA prostheses."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fnbot.2021.768619"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1662-5218"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/98918"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-517"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","1662-5218"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.title","Impact of Shared Control Modalities on Performance and Usability of Semi-autonomous Prostheses"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","498"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","2"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","507"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","28"],["dc.contributor.author","Markovic, Marko"],["dc.contributor.author","Varel, Marc"],["dc.contributor.author","Schweisfurth, Meike A."],["dc.contributor.author","Schilling, Arndt F."],["dc.contributor.author","Dosen, Strahinja"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-04-14T08:27:31Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-04-14T08:27:31Z"],["dc.date.issued","2020"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2959714"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1558-0210"],["dc.identifier.issn","1534-4320"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/82316"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-399"],["dc.relation.eissn","1558-0210"],["dc.relation.issn","1534-4320"],["dc.title","Closed-Loop Multi-Amplitude Control for Robust and Dexterous Performance of Myoelectric Prosthesis"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1298"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","IEEE Transactions on Robotics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","1312"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","37"],["dc.contributor.author","Mouchoux, Jeremy"],["dc.contributor.author","Carisi, Stefano"],["dc.contributor.author","Dosen, Strahinja"],["dc.contributor.author","Farina, Dario"],["dc.contributor.author","Schilling, Arndt F."],["dc.contributor.author","Markovic, Marko"],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-09-01T06:42:04Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-09-01T06:42:04Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1109/TRO.2020.3047013"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/88973"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-455"],["dc.relation.eissn","1941-0468"],["dc.relation.issn","1552-3098"],["dc.title","Artificial Perception and Semiautonomous Control in Myoelectric Hand Prostheses Increases Performance and Decreases Effort"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","19505"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","17"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","IEEE Sensors Journal"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","19515"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","21"],["dc.contributor.author","Hahne, Janne M."],["dc.contributor.author","Markovic, Marko"],["dc.contributor.author","Pardo, Luis A."],["dc.contributor.author","Kusche, Roman"],["dc.contributor.author","Ryschka, Martin"],["dc.contributor.author","Schilling, Arndt F."],["dc.date.accessioned","2021-10-01T09:57:56Z"],["dc.date.available","2021-10-01T09:57:56Z"],["dc.date.issued","2021"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1109/JSEN.2021.3090949"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/89950"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-469"],["dc.relation.eissn","1558-1748"],["dc.relation.eissn","2379-9153"],["dc.relation.issn","1530-437X"],["dc.title","On the Utility of Bioimpedance in the Context of Myoelectric Control"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.artnumber","958415"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Neuroscience"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","16"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Pardo, Luis A.; 1Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Markovic, Marko; 1Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Schilling, Arndt F.; 1Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Wilke, Meike Annika; 2Faculty of Life Sciences, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HAW), Hamburg, Germany"],["dc.contributor.affiliation","Ernst, Jennifer; 1Department of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedics and Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany"],["dc.contributor.author","Pardo, Luis A."],["dc.contributor.author","Schilling, Arndt F."],["dc.contributor.author","Wilke, Meike Annika"],["dc.contributor.author","Ernst, Jennifer"],["dc.contributor.author","Marković, Marko"],["dc.date.accessioned","2022-12-01T08:31:34Z"],["dc.date.available","2022-12-01T08:31:34Z"],["dc.date.issued","2022"],["dc.date.updated","2022-11-11T14:11:26Z"],["dc.description.abstract","Vibrotactile sensation is an essential part of the sense of touch. In this study, the localized vibrotactile sensation of the arm-shoulder region was quantified in 10 able-bodied subjects. For this analysis, the six relevant dermatomes (C3-T2) and three segments—the lower arm, the upper arm, and the shoulder region were studied. For psychometric evaluation, tasks resulting in the quantification of sensation threshold, just noticeable difference, Weber fraction, and perception of dynamically changing vibrotactile stimuli were performed. We found that healthy subjects could reliably detect vibration in all tested regions at low amplitude (2–6% of the maximal amplitude of commonly used vibrotactors). The detection threshold was significantly lower in the lower arm than that in the shoulder, as well as ventral in comparison with the dorsal. There were no significant differences in Weber fraction (20%) detectable between the studied locations. A compensatory tracking task resulted in a significantly higher average rectified error in the shoulder than that in the upper arm, while delay and correlation coefficient showed no difference between the regions. Here, we presented a conclusive map of the vibrotactile sense of the healthy upper limb. These data give an overview of the sensory bandwidth that can be achieved with vibrotactile stimulation at the arm and may help in the design of vibrotactile feedback interfaces (displays) for the hand/arm/shoulder-region."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2022"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fnins.2022.958415"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/118203"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI-Import GROB-621"],["dc.relation.eissn","1662-453X"],["dc.rights.uri","https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.title","Vibrotactile mapping of the upper extremity: Absolute perceived intensity is location-dependent; perception of relative changes is not"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]