Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind

1. Can't this most easily be explained by invoking hierarchical PCT?
2. Is there any other theory of motor behavior than can explain it at all?

I'll try to find the Nature report ASAP.

Best regards,
Ted

···

==================================================

* Notifications <javascript:void(0);>
*
o Profile <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/>
o Settings <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/preferences/>
o Logout <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/logout/?referer=%2F>
      
May 17, 2012
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/healthy-living/>
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/healthy-living/>
Edition: U.S.
Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind
By MALCOLM RITTER 05/16/12 02:17 PM ET

Cathy Hutchinson of East Taunton, Mass. sips a drink held by a robotic arm
during a test at a long-term care residence for adults with neurological
disease in Dorchester, Mass. A report by researchers published in the
Thursday, May 17, 2012 issue of the journal Nature describes how two people,
paralyzed years before by strokes, were able to control free-standing
robotic arms with the help of a tiny sensor planted in their brains.
NEW YORK -- Using only her thoughts, a Massachusetts woman paralyzed for 15
years directed a robotic arm to pick up a bottle of coffee and bring it to
her lips, researchers report in the latest advance in harnessing brain waves
to help disabled people.
In the past year, similar stories have included a quadriplegic man in
Pennsylvania who made a robotic arm give a high-five and stroke his
girlfriend's hand, and a partially paralyzed man who remotely controlled a
small robot that scooted around in a Swiss lab.
It's startling stuff. But will the experimental brain-controlled technology
ever help paralyzed people in everyday life?
Experts in the technology and in rehabilitation medicine say they are
optimistic that it will, once technology improves and the cost comes down.
The latest report, which was published online Wednesday in the journal
Nature, comes from scientists at Brown University, the Providence VA Medical
Center in Rhode Island, Harvard Medical School and elsewhere.
It describes how two people who lost use of their arms and legs because of
strokes years before were able to control free-standing robotic arms with
the help of a tiny sensor implanted in their brains.
The sensor, about the size of a baby aspirin, eavesdropped on the electrical
activity of a few dozen brain cells as the study participants imagined
moving their arms. The chip then sent signals to a computer, which
translated them into commands to the robotic arms.
The computer was taught how to interpret the brain patterns through practice
as the paralyzed participants watched the robot arms move and then imagined
that they were moving their own arms the same way.[Emphasis mine -- Ted]
In one task to test the system, the two participants tried to direct a robot
arm to reach out and squeeze foam balls in front of them. The man succeeded
in less than half his attempts, but the woman was able to do it about 60
percent of the time.
The woman, Cathy Hutchinson of East Taunton, Mass., was also asked to use
the arm to drink the coffee. That involved picking up the bottle, bringing
it to her lips so she could sip from a straw, and putting the bottle back on
the table. She succeeded in four out of six tries with the arm, which was
specially programmed for this task.
"The smile on her face ... was just a wonderful thing to see," said Dr.
Leigh Hochberg, a researcher with the Providence VA, Brown and Massachusetts
General Hospital.
Researchers said in Hutchinson's case that the results show that the
implanted chip still worked after five years, and that her brain was still
generating useful signals even though she hadn't moved her arms in almost 15
years.
The ultimate goal, researchers said, is an implanted device that would
reactivate a person's own paralyzed limbs. Another goal is to operate
high-tech prostheses for amputees.
Andrew Schwartz, who is doing similar research at the University of
Pittsburgh, said the coffee-sipping was encouraging because it represents an
everyday task a paralyzed person might want to do. "I think it's showing
this technology has therapeutic potential," he said.
"The field is rapidly advancing, and I think this offers hope for people who
are paralyzed," Schwartz said. "The types of movements we'll be able to do
are getting more and more sophisticated at a rapid pace."
But he and others said the technology faces a number of hurdles to
widespread use, like reducing its high cost, making it more reliable, and
refining the technology. For example, the brain implant now sends signals
out with a wire through the skull, and researchers want to develop a
completely implanted version that communicates wirelessly.
Another step toward wide use will be enticing companies to invest the money
to make commercial products. Just when that might happen is an open
question, Schwartz said, but it could be in the next couple of years, with
prostheses or free-standing robotic arms on the market a few years after
that.
Dr. Bruce Gans, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the
Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in West Orange, N.J., said the
technology is too expensive now for widespread use. But if brain control
finds uses outside the relatively limited market of paralyzed people, that
might drive improvements in technology and dramatically reduce the cost, he
said.
Gans suggested other uses might involve industrial applications;
neuroscientist Andrew Jackson of Newcastle University in England suggested
it might be in rehabilitation for victims of less severe strokes.
At some point, Gans said, "It may even turn into something that allows a
person with paralysis to go back to work, so it becomes a tool a vocational
rehabilitation program could eventually endorse and support."
Dr. Preeti Raghavan, an expert in physical rehabilitation of the arms and
hands at the New York University Langone Medical Center, noted that the cost
of the technology would be weighed against the significant expense of
caregiving for paralyzed people who can't do much on their own.
She said she expected that within a decade, many people may be using the
technology to control their own limbs or robotic arms. Gans said that wider
use of robotic arms might be feasible within five years, but that
reactivating paralyzed limbs could be decades away.

Science is the process of eliminating supernatural explanations. - Robert
Park

Here's the original article, attached. I couldn't find anything more
pertinent to our interests, except that the sensor was implanted in an area
of the brain that normally controls hand movements.
Ted

1. Can't this most easily be explained by invoking hierarchical PCT?
2. Is there any other theory of motor behavior than can explain it at all?

I'll try to find the Nature report ASAP.

Best regards,
Ted

nature11076.pdf (2.5 MB)

···

Subject: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind

* Notifications <javascript:void(0);>
*
o Profile <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/>
o Settings <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/preferences/>
o Logout <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/logout/?referer=%2F>
      
May 17, 2012
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/healthy-living/>
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/healthy-living/>
Edition: U.S.
Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind By MALCOLM RITTER
05/16/12 02:17 PM ET

Cathy Hutchinson of East Taunton, Mass. sips a drink held by a robotic arm
during a test at a long-term care residence for adults with neurological
disease in Dorchester, Mass. A report by researchers published in the
Thursday, May 17, 2012 issue of the journal Nature describes how two people,
paralyzed years before by strokes, were able to control free-standing
robotic arms with the help of a tiny sensor planted in their brains.
NEW YORK -- Using only her thoughts, a Massachusetts woman paralyzed for 15
years directed a robotic arm to pick up a bottle of coffee and bring it to
her lips, researchers report in the latest advance in harnessing brain waves
to help disabled people.
In the past year, similar stories have included a quadriplegic man in
Pennsylvania who made a robotic arm give a high-five and stroke his
girlfriend's hand, and a partially paralyzed man who remotely controlled a
small robot that scooted around in a Swiss lab.
It's startling stuff. But will the experimental brain-controlled technology
ever help paralyzed people in everyday life?
Experts in the technology and in rehabilitation medicine say they are
optimistic that it will, once technology improves and the cost comes down.
The latest report, which was published online Wednesday in the journal
Nature, comes from scientists at Brown University, the Providence VA Medical
Center in Rhode Island, Harvard Medical School and elsewhere.
It describes how two people who lost use of their arms and legs because of
strokes years before were able to control free-standing robotic arms with
the help of a tiny sensor implanted in their brains.
The sensor, about the size of a baby aspirin, eavesdropped on the electrical
activity of a few dozen brain cells as the study participants imagined
moving their arms. The chip then sent signals to a computer, which
translated them into commands to the robotic arms.
The computer was taught how to interpret the brain patterns through practice
as the paralyzed participants watched the robot arms move and then imagined
that they were moving their own arms the same way.[Emphasis mine -- Ted] In
one task to test the system, the two participants tried to direct a robot
arm to reach out and squeeze foam balls in front of them. The man succeeded
in less than half his attempts, but the woman was able to do it about 60
percent of the time.
The woman, Cathy Hutchinson of East Taunton, Mass., was also asked to use
the arm to drink the coffee. That involved picking up the bottle, bringing
it to her lips so she could sip from a straw, and putting the bottle back on
the table. She succeeded in four out of six tries with the arm, which was
specially programmed for this task.
"The smile on her face ... was just a wonderful thing to see," said Dr.
Leigh Hochberg, a researcher with the Providence VA, Brown and Massachusetts
General Hospital.
Researchers said in Hutchinson's case that the results show that the
implanted chip still worked after five years, and that her brain was still
generating useful signals even though she hadn't moved her arms in almost 15
years.
The ultimate goal, researchers said, is an implanted device that would
reactivate a person's own paralyzed limbs. Another goal is to operate
high-tech prostheses for amputees.
Andrew Schwartz, who is doing similar research at the University of
Pittsburgh, said the coffee-sipping was encouraging because it represents an
everyday task a paralyzed person might want to do. "I think it's showing
this technology has therapeutic potential," he said.
"The field is rapidly advancing, and I think this offers hope for people who
are paralyzed," Schwartz said. "The types of movements we'll be able to do
are getting more and more sophisticated at a rapid pace."
But he and others said the technology faces a number of hurdles to
widespread use, like reducing its high cost, making it more reliable, and
refining the technology. For example, the brain implant now sends signals
out with a wire through the skull, and researchers want to develop a
completely implanted version that communicates wirelessly.
Another step toward wide use will be enticing companies to invest the money
to make commercial products. Just when that might happen is an open
question, Schwartz said, but it could be in the next couple of years, with
prostheses or free-standing robotic arms on the market a few years after
that.
Dr. Bruce Gans, executive vice president and chief medical officer of the
Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in West Orange, N.J., said the
technology is too expensive now for widespread use. But if brain control
finds uses outside the relatively limited market of paralyzed people, that
might drive improvements in technology and dramatically reduce the cost, he
said.
Gans suggested other uses might involve industrial applications;
neuroscientist Andrew Jackson of Newcastle University in England suggested
it might be in rehabilitation for victims of less severe strokes.
At some point, Gans said, "It may even turn into something that allows a
person with paralysis to go back to work, so it becomes a tool a vocational
rehabilitation program could eventually endorse and support."
Dr. Preeti Raghavan, an expert in physical rehabilitation of the arms and
hands at the New York University Langone Medical Center, noted that the cost
of the technology would be weighed against the significant expense of
caregiving for paralyzed people who can't do much on their own.
She said she expected that within a decade, many people may be using the
technology to control their own limbs or robotic arms. Gans said that wider
use of robotic arms might be feasible within five years, but that
reactivating paralyzed limbs could be decades away.

Science is the process of eliminating supernatural explanations. - Robert
Park

[From Bill Powers (2012.0518.0612 MDT)]

Here's the original article, attached. I couldn't find anything more
pertinent to our interests, except that the sensor was implanted in an area
of the brain that normally controls hand movements.

That means, doesn't it, the area that normally adjusts reference signals for the lower systems that actually do the moving of the hand/

Ted

Subject: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind

1. Can't this most easily be explained by invoking hierarchical PCT?
2. Is there any other theory of motor behavior than can explain it at all?

(1) Yes, and (2) No.

Bill

···

At 12:04 PM 5/17/2012, Ted Cloak wrote:

[From Fred Nickols (2012.05.18.0557 PDT)]

I wonder if she could still control it blindfolded. It seems to me she can
see the robot arm but it's not clear to me that she can otherwise sense it.
It also seems to me that she gained control over the robot arm as the result
of a lot of rapid reorganization on her part; in other words, her brain
tried a zillion things and finally something worked. I'll have to read that
article very carefully.

Fred Nickols

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 5:16 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind

[From Bill Powers (2012.0518.0612 MDT)]

>Here's the original article, attached. I couldn't find anything more
>pertinent to our interests, except that the sensor was implanted in an
>area of the brain that normally controls hand movements.

That means, doesn't it, the area that normally adjusts reference signals

for

the lower systems that actually do the moving of the hand/

>Ted
>
>Subject: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind
>
> 1. Can't this most easily be explained by invoking hierarchical PCT?
>2. Is there any other theory of motor behavior than can explain it at

all?

···

-----Original Message-----
  At 12:04 PM 5/17/2012, Ted Cloak wrote:

(1) Yes, and (2) No.

Bill

[Fred Nickols (2012.05.18.0609)]

Hmm. Looks like something different from what I thought. Apparently, they
captured some signals from the sensor in her brain while she was imagining
moving her arm and then used those to "teach" the computer to move the
robotic arm in accordance with what they captured. Hmm again.

Fred Nickols

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 6:01 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind

[From Fred Nickols (2012.05.18.0557 PDT)]

I wonder if she could still control it blindfolded. It seems to me she

can see

the robot arm but it's not clear to me that she can otherwise sense it.
It also seems to me that she gained control over the robot arm as the

result

of a lot of rapid reorganization on her part; in other words, her brain

tried a

zillion things and finally something worked. I'll have to read that

article very

···

-----Original Message-----
carefully.

Fred Nickols

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
> [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 5:16 AM
> To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind
>
> [From Bill Powers (2012.0518.0612 MDT)]
>
> At 12:04 PM 5/17/2012, Ted Cloak wrote:
> >Here's the original article, attached. I couldn't find anything more
> >pertinent to our interests, except that the sensor was implanted in
> >an area of the brain that normally controls hand movements.
>
> That means, doesn't it, the area that normally adjusts reference
> signals
for
> the lower systems that actually do the moving of the hand/
>
> >Ted
> >
> >Subject: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind
> >
> > 1. Can't this most easily be explained by invoking hierarchical PCT?
> >2. Is there any other theory of motor behavior than can explain it at
all?
>
> (1) Yes, and (2) No.
>
> Bill

[From Rick Marken (2012.05.18.1030)]

Fred Nickols (2012.05.18.0557 PDT) –

I wonder if she could still control it blindfolded.

What a great thought, Fred. I am sure she could not. Blindfolding the patient would be a simple way of demonstrating that what is going on here is the control of perceptual aspects of the robot’s behavior. The robot itself is a very complex feedback function in the path between outputs (the firing of cortical motor neurons) and the perceptual aspects of the robot’s behavior that are being controlled.

If these researchers were able to look at it this way – as the control of perception – I think there would be a couple of things they could try that might improve things. One place to look for possible improvements is in the display of what the robot is doing: perhaps add lines and arrows of varying length and size indicating the states of the perceptual aspects of the robot’s behavior that are influenced by the variations in neural firing rates. Another place to look for possible improvements is placing the neural sensors lower in the NS, perhaps in the cerebellum. The cortical “motor” neurons are, according to PCT, reference specifications for higher level perceptions (like the configuration of the robot’s arms). The patient would ordinarily control these perceptions by varying the references for lower level perceptions (such as, ultimately, muscle forces, the perceptions that the patient can no longer control). Since there are more degrees of freedom of variation in these lower level signals this might allow better control of the perceptions of robot behavior that are being controlled.

All in all a great demonstration of control of perception, although in rather tragic and heart breaking circumstances.

Best

Rick

···

It seems to me she can

see the robot arm but it’s not clear to me that she can otherwise sense it.

It also seems to me that she gained control over the robot arm as the result

of a lot of rapid reorganization on her part; in other words, her brain

tried a zillion things and finally something worked. I’ll have to read that

article very carefully.

Fred Nickols

-----Original Message-----

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)

[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Bill Powers

Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 5:16 AM

To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU

Subject: Re: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind

[From Bill Powers (2012.0518.0612 MDT)]

At 12:04 PM 5/17/2012, Ted Cloak wrote:

Here’s the original article, attached. I couldn’t find anything more

pertinent to our interests, except that the sensor was implanted in an

area of the brain that normally controls hand movements.

That means, doesn’t it, the area that normally adjusts reference signals

for

the lower systems that actually do the moving of the hand/

Ted

Subject: Paralyzed Woman Controls Robot Arm Using Only Her Mind

  1. Can’t this most easily be explained by invoking hierarchical PCT?
  1. Is there any other theory of motor behavior than can explain it at

all?

(1) Yes, and (2) No.

Bill


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2012.05.18.1150 MDT)]

Fred Nickols (2012.05.18.0557 PDT)]

I wonder if she could still
control it blindfolded. It seems to me she can

see the robot arm but it’s not clear to me that she can otherwise sense
it.

It also seems to me that she gained control over the robot arm as the
result

of a lot of rapid reorganization on her part; in other words, her
brain

tried a zillion things and finally something worked. I’ll have to
read that

article very carefully.

Excellent thought, Fred. I’ll bet, along with Rick, that she couldn’t.
She could affect the robot arm but couldn’t compensate for any
changes or disturbances, so she couldn’t control it.

Best,

Bill P.