A roadmap for implanting microelectrode arrays to evoke tactile sensations through intracortical microstimulation.

Intracortical microstimulation (ICMS) is a method for restoring sensation to people with paralysis as part of a bidirectional brain-computer interface to restore upper limb function. Evoking tactile sensations of the hand through ICMS requires precise targeting of implanted electrodes. Here we describe the presurgical imaging procedures used to generate functional maps of the hand area of the somatosensory cortex and subsequent planning that guided the implantation of intracortical microelectrode arrays. In five participants with cervical spinal cord injury, across two study locations, this procedure successfully enabled ICMS-evoked sensations localized to at least the first four digits of the hand. The imaging and planning procedures developed through this clinical trial provide a roadmap for other brain-computer interface studies to ensure successful placement of stimulation electrodes.

Biomimetic versus arbitrary motor control strategies for bionic hand skill learning.

A long-standing engineering ambition has been to design anthropomorphic bionic limbs: devices that look like and are controlled in the same way as the biological body (biomimetic). The untested assumption is that biomimetic motor control enhances device embodiment, learning, generalization and automaticity. To test this, we compared biomimetic and non-biomimetic control strategies for non-disabled participants when learning to control a wearable myoelectric bionic hand operated by an eight-channel electromyography pattern-recognition system. We compared motor learning across days and behavioural tasks for two training groups: biomimetic (mimicking the desired bionic hand gesture with biological hand) and arbitrary control (mapping an unrelated biological hand gesture with the desired bionic gesture). For both trained groups, training improved bionic limb control, reduced cognitive reliance and increased embodiment over the bionic hand. Biomimetic users had more intuitive and faster control early in training. Arbitrary users matched biomimetic performance later in training. Furthermore, arbitrary users showed increased generalization to a new control strategy. Collectively, our findings suggest that biomimetic and arbitrary control strategies provide different benefits. The optimal strategy is probably not strictly biomimetic, but rather a flexible strategy within the biomimetic-to-arbitrary spectrum, depending on the user, available training opportunities and user requirements.

Should bionic limb control mimic the human body? Impact of control strategy on bionic hand skill learning.

A longstanding engineering ambition has been to design anthropomorphic bionic limbs: devices that look like and are controlled in the same way as the biological body (biomimetic). The untested assumption is that biomimetic motor control enhances device embodiment, learning, generalization, and automaticity. To test this, we compared biomimetic and non-biomimetic control strategies for able-bodied participants when learning to operate a wearable myoelectric bionic hand. We compared motor learning across days and behavioural tasks for two training groups: Biomimetic (mimicking the desired bionic hand gesture with biological hand) and Arbitrary control (mapping an unrelated biological hand gesture with the desired bionic gesture). For both trained groups, training improved bionic limb control, reduced cognitive reliance, and increased embodiment over the bionic hand. Biomimetic users had more intuitive and faster control early in training. Arbitrary users matched biomimetic performance later in training. Further, arbitrary users showed increased generalization to a novel control strategy. Collectively, our findings suggest that biomimetic and arbitrary control strategies provide different benefits. The optimal strategy is likely not strictly biomimetic, but rather a flexible strategy within the biomimetic to arbitrary spectrum, depending on the user, available training opportunities and user requirements.

Stable Cortical Body Maps Before and After Arm Amputation.

Neuroscientists have long debated the adult brain's capacity to reorganize itself in response to injury. A driving model for studying plasticity has been limb amputation. For decades, it was believed that amputation triggers large-scale reorganization of cortical body resources. However, these studies have relied on cross-sectional observations post-amputation, without directly tracking neural changes. Here, we longitudinally followed adult patients with planned arm amputations and measured hand and face representations, before and after amputation. By interrogating the representational structure elicited from movements of the hand (pre-amputation) and phantom hand (post-amputation), we demonstrate that hand representation is unaltered. Further, we observed no evidence for lower face (lip) reorganization into the deprived hand region. Collectively, our findings provide direct and decisive evidence that amputation does not trigger large-scale cortical reorganization.

Making sense of phantom limb pain.

Phantom limb pain (PLP) impacts the majority of individuals who undergo limb amputation. The PLP experience is highly heterogenous in its quality, intensity, frequency and severity. This heterogeneity, combined with the low prevalence of amputation in the general population, has made it difficult to accumulate reliable data on PLP. Consequently, we lack consensus on PLP mechanisms, as well as effective treatment options. However, the wealth of new PLP research, over the past decade, provides a unique opportunity to re-evaluate some of the core assumptions underlying what we know about PLP and the rationale behind PLP treatments. The goal of this review is to help generate consensus in the field on how best to research PLP, from phenomenology to treatment. We highlight conceptual and methodological challenges in studying PLP, which have hindered progress on the topic and spawned disagreement in the field, and offer potential solutions to overcome these challenges. Our hope is that a constructive evaluation of the foundational knowledge underlying PLP research practices will enable more informed decisions when testing the efficacy of existing interventions and will guide the development of the next generation of PLP treatments.

Early life experience sets hard limits on motor learning as evidenced from artificial arm use.

The study of artificial arms provides a unique opportunity to address long-standing questions on sensorimotor plasticity and development. Learning to use an artificial arm arguably depends on fundamental building blocks of body representation and would therefore be impacted by early life experience. We tested artificial arm motor-control in two adult populations with upper-limb deficiencies: a congenital group-individuals who were born with a partial arm, and an acquired group-who lost their arm following amputation in adulthood. Brain plasticity research teaches us that the earlier we train to acquire new skills (or use a new technology) the better we benefit from this practice as adults. Instead, we found that although the congenital group started using an artificial arm as toddlers, they produced increased error noise and directional errors when reaching to visual targets, relative to the acquired group who performed similarly to controls. However, the earlier an individual with a congenital limb difference was fitted with an artificial arm, the better their motor control was. Since we found no group differences when reaching without visual feedback, we suggest that the ability to perform efficient visual-based corrective movements is highly dependent on either biological or artificial arm experience at a very young age. Subsequently, opportunities for sensorimotor plasticity become more limited.

Expert Tool Users Show Increased Differentiation between Visual Representations of Hands and Tools.

The idea that when we use a tool we incorporate it into the neural representation of our body (embodiment) has been a major inspiration for philosophy, science, and engineering. While theoretically appealing, there is little direct evidence for tool embodiment at the neural level. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in male and female human subjects, we investigated whether expert tool users (London litter pickers: n = 7) represent their expert tool more like a hand (neural embodiment) or less like a hand (neural differentiation), as compared with a group of tool novices (n = 12). During fMRI scans, participants viewed first-person videos depicting grasps performed by either a hand, litter picker, or a non-expert grasping tool. Using representational similarity analysis (RSA), differences in the representational structure of hands and tools were measured within occipitotemporal cortex (OTC). Contrary to the neural embodiment theory, we find that the experts group represent their own tool less like a hand (not more) relative to novices. Using a case-study approach, we further replicated this effect, independently, in five of the seven individual expert litter pickers, as compared with the novices. An exploratory analysis in left parietal cortex, a region implicated in visuomotor representations of hands and tools, also indicated that experts do not visually represent their tool more similar to hands, compared with novices. Together, our findings suggest that extensive tool use leads to an increased neural differentiation between visual representations of hands and tools. This evidence provides an important alternative framework to the prominent tool embodiment theory.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT It is commonly thought that tool use leads to the assimilation of the tool into the neural representation of the body, a process referred to as embodiment. Here, we demonstrate that expert tool users (London litter pickers) neurally represent their own tool less like a hand (not more), compared with novices. Our findings advance our current understanding for how experience shapes functional organization in high-order visual cortex. Further, this evidence provides an alternative framework to the prominent tool embodiment theory, suggesting instead that experience with tools leads to more distinct, separable hand and tool representations.

Motor control drives visual bodily judgements.

The 'embodied cognition' framework proposes that our motor repertoire shapes visual perception and cognition. But recent studies showing normal visual body representation in individuals born without hands challenges the contribution of motor control on visual body representation. Here, we studied hand laterality judgements in three groups with fundamentally different visual and motor hand experiences: two-handed controls, one-handers born without a hand (congenital one-handers) and one-handers with an acquired amputation (amputees). Congenital one-handers, lacking both motor and first-person visual information of their missing hand, diverged in their performance from the other groups, exhibiting more errors for their intact hand and slower reaction-times for challenging hand postures. Amputees, who have lingering non-visual motor control of their missing (phantom) hand, performed the task similarly to controls. Amputees' reaction-times for visual laterality judgements correlated positively with their phantom hand's motor control, such that deteriorated motor control associated with slower visual laterality judgements. Finally, we have implemented a computational simulation to describe how a mechanism that utilises a single hand representation in congenital one-handers as opposed to two in controls, could replicate our empirical results. Together, our findings demonstrate that motor control is a driver in making visual bodily judgments.