Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07058506

Control Interfaces for Operating Assistive Devices

Neurinnov, in collaboration with the CBV USSAP center and the CAMIN INRIA team, has conducted clinical investigations using various control interfaces, including EMG, IMU, contact sensors, and voice commands, to operate a motor neuroprosthesis. This neuroprosthesis is based on neural electrical stimulation, enabling the activation of multiples muscles via a single electrode. The clinical investigations have successfully demonstrated the feasibility of achieving grasping movements induced by neural electrical stimulation, which are controlled by the participant through external interfaces.

These external interfaces were based on existing technologies but were only suitable for research purposes due to their lack of portability. The current investigation aims to validate fully portable interfaces designed by Neurinnov, which are intended to be integral components of a future medical device that includes an implanted stimulator and its neural electrodes. The study's goal is to demonstrate that these interfaces can be used by participants with sufficient success rate (clinical performance) to support daily use.

Our main hypothesis is that the participants can effectively use at least two of the six control interfaces presented to them to detect their intention to perform a motor action within a software environment under constant conditions. These interfaces include voice commands, inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors, surface electromyography (EMG) sensors, switch, joystick, and earswitch.

Recruiting

Interested in participating?

Request Info

Key information

Age range

18 year–80 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Rehabilitation Center Bouffard-Vercelli USSAP

Perpignan, 66000, France

Location status: Recruiting

Location contact

Charles FATTAL, MD, PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

33 (0)430441167

About this study

Various control interfaces (CIs) are used to capture user intent for operating assistive devices. In recent years, several methods have been developed to detect user intent for controlling invasive motor neuroprostheses for upper limbs. The Freehand System® utilized an external shoulder position sensor on the contralateral side to detect user intent and control hand grasp stimulation. In some studies, a switch was integrated with the sensor to turn the system on and off and to select the type of grasp (palmar or lateral). Brain-computer interface (BCI) systems based on electroencephalography (EEG) have also been employed. The Implantable Stimulator-Telemeter ('IST-10'), the second generation of the Freehand, had ten stimulation channels and was used with an implantable joint angle sensor. The third generation, the Implanted Stimulator Telemeter (IST-12), used myoelectric signals. However, no direct comparison has been made between these different modalities, nor has their relevance been determined.

Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the performance (efficacy: reliability and precision) of six non-invasive control interfaces. The efficacy criterion is defined by the ability to reliably and accurately control a motor action as illustrated by software on a screen. The six control interfaces are: (1) inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors that record movements of the contralateral shoulder; (2) surface electromyography (EMG) sensors that capture voluntary muscle contractions of the contralateral limb; (3) a pressure sensor button (switch sensor); (4) a pressure sensor joystick (joystick sensor); (5) a voice recognition sensor (voice sensor) that incorporates a machine learning model capable of recognizing specific words spoken by the participant; and (6) an Ear-Switch® sensor that detects movements of a muscle inside the ear, the tensor tympani.

The study will be conducted over six sessions:

  • (V1) Selection Visit: The selection visit will be conducted by the coordinating investigator, who will monitor the participant throughout the trial.
  • (V2) Inclusion Visit: This visit will include:
  • Clinical examination
  • Collection of the signed consent form
  • Audio recordings of key words to personalize the speech recognition algorithms
  • (V3 to V5) Experimental Visits:
  • V3: Evaluation of all six control interfaces.
  • V4: Detailed assessment of the two best-mastered control interfaces, both separately and in combination (bimodal use).
  • V5: Intensity modulation visit, assessing the participant's ability to reliably and accurately reach target static and dynamic intensity levels (as shown on a screen) using two of the interfaces.
  • (V6) End-of-Study Visit: This final visit will consist of a clinical and psychological follow-up consultation to ensure the absence of any adverse effects.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Spinal cord injury defined by an AIS A, B or C score (AIS A, B or C): complete or incomplete motor deficit below the lesion. This is a standard for describing spinal cord injuries that has been internationally agreed upon.
  • Spinal cord injury at the neurological level > C7
  • Age greater than or equal to 18 and less than or equal to 80 years
  • A history of more than 3 months of neurological stability, with no changes in muscle testing.
  • Participants capable of following instructions for testing and providing feedback on the use of the device.
  • Participants who have signed the informed consent form to participate in the study after being fully informed.
  • Participants affiliated with a social security system (either as a beneficiary or a dependent), excluding those covered by State Medical Aid (AME).

Exclusion criteria

  • Participant deprived of liberty (by judicial or administrative decision).
  • Adult participants are under legal protection or unable to provide informed consent.
  • Participation in another ongoing clinical trial.
  • Unstable psychiatric condition.
  • Severe cognitive impairment.
  • Unstable acute medical condition
  • Insufficient proficiency in spoken and written French.

Treatment and study plan

Comparison of 5 interfaces used to capture user intent to operate a neuroprosthesis

Device

No intervention

Primary outcomes

  1. Efficacy indicators

    Time frame: At Day 1

    Success rate: describes the ability of a control interface to execute requested functions under specified conditions Evaluation criterion: (Number of correctly recognized commands) / (Number of correctly recognized commands + Number of incorrectly recognized commands). Rate in percentage %

Secondary outcomes

  1. Time workload indicators

    Time frame: At Day 1

    Latency between the user's actual intention and its detection, measured in seconds.

  2. Indicator of feasibility: Ease of installation, calibration, and learning of each control interface (CI)

    Time frame: At Day 2 for the points 1, 2 and 3 and at Day 3 for the point 4

    Evaluation criterion: Time tracked by the sensor control software, measured in minutes.

  3. Indicator of feasibility: Ease of placing the control interface

    Time frame: At Day 2 for the points 1, 2 and 3 and at Day 3 for the point 4

    Evaluation criterion: The number of times a third party (participant's caregiver or clinician) needed physical assistance and/or requested additional instructions to position the sensor.

  4. Indicator of feasibility: Ease of learning to use the control interface

    Time frame: At Day 2 for the points 1, 2 and 3 and at Day 3 for the point 4

    Evaluation criterion: The number of repetitions required for the participant to learn the interface.

    At Day 2 for the points 1, 2 and 3 and at Day 3 for the point 4

  5. Indicator of feasibility: User feedback concerning usability of the control interface

    Time frame: At Day 2 for the points 1, 2 and 3 and at Day 3 for the point 4

    Evaluation criterion: System Usability Scale French Version (F-SUS) Score min: 10 and score max: 50

  6. Indicator of tolerance : Pain experienced during and after using the interface

    Time frame: During the experimentation at Day 2 and 3

    Evaluation criterion: visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10.

  7. Indicator of tolerance : Adverse effects

    Time frame: During the experimentation at Day 2 and 3

    Adverse effects encountered during and after using the interface.

  8. Indicators of satisfaction, comfort, pleasure of use and subjective workload

    Time frame: At Day 3

    User satisfaction with the control interface (CI) Evaluation criterion: Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (French version = ESAT) . Score min : 12 and score max: 60

  9. Indicators of satisfaction, comfort, pleasure of use and subjective workload

    Time frame: At Day 3

    Enjoyability of the control interface, reflecting the user's mood, motivation, or frustration.

    Evaluation criterion: appropriate section of the questionnaire National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). For each item, the score min is 0 and max 100

  10. Indicators of satisfaction, comfort, pleasure of use and subjective workload

    Time frame: At Day 3

    User perception of subjective workload Evaluation criterion: questionnaire National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). For each item, the score min is 0 and max 100

  11. Indicators that a static and dynamic intensity value has been reached in a predetermined time (difference between target and initial value)

    Time frame: At Day 7

    Static trial: successful target acquisition within the allotted time (acquisition time in seconds).

  12. Indicators that a static and dynamic intensity value has been reached in a predetermined time (difference between target and initial value)

    Time frame: At Day 7

    • Dynamic trial: the user-controlled value remains within a 10% margin of error relative to the reference value throughout the trial. (margin of error in percentage %)

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Charles FATTAL Charles FATTAL, MD, PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

+33 430441100

David GUIRAUD, PhD

CONTACT

[email protected]

33 0434348028

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Centre Bouffard Vercelli - USSAP

Other

Collaborators

  • Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique
  • NEURINNOV

Registry information

Official study title

Evaluation of Non-invasive Control Interfaces for Operating Assistive Devices for Tetraplegic Individuals

Acronym: SENSORS

Important dates

Study start
2024
Primary completion
2024
Study completion
2025
First posted
Jul 10, 2025
Registry last updated
Jul 10, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.