Volume 13 · Number 2 · Pages 250–262

< Previous Paper · Next Paper >

Applying Radical Constructivism to Machine Learning: A Pilot Study in Assistive Robotics

Markus Nowak, Claudio Castellini & Carlo Massironi

Download the full text in
PDF (1569 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Abstract

Context: In this article we match machine learning (ML) and interactive machine learning (iML) with radical constructivism (RC) to build a tentative radical constructivist framework for iML; we then present a pilot study in which RC-framed iML is applied to assistive robotics, namely upper-limb prosthetics (myocontrol. Problem: Despite more than 40 years of academic research, myocontrol is still unsolved, with rejection rates of up to 75. This is mainly due to its unreliability - the inability to correctly predict the patient’s intent in daily life. Method: We propose a description of the typical problems posed by ML-based myocontrol through the lingo of RC, highlighting the advantages of such a modelisation. We abstract some aspects of RC and project them onto the concepts of ML, to make it evolve into the concept of RC-framed iML. Results: Such a projection leads to the design and development of a myocontrol system based upon RC-framed iML, used to foster the co-adaptation of human and prosthesis. The iML-based myocontrol system is then compared to a traditional ML-based one in a pilot study involving human participants in a goal-reaching task mimicking the control of a prosthetic hand and wrist. Implications: We argue that the usage of RC-framed iML in myocontrol could be of great help to the community of assistive robotics, and that the constructivist perspective can lead to principled design of the system itself, as well as of the training/calibration/co-adaptation procedure. Constructivist content: Ernst von Glasersfeld’s RC is the leading principle pushing for the usage of RC-framed iML; it also provides guidelines for the design of the system, the human/machine interface, the experiments and the experimental setups.

Key words: Machine learning, interactive machine learning, radical constructivism, assistive robotics, human-machine interaction, co-adaptation.

Citation

Nowak M., Castellini C. & Massironi C. (2018) Applying radical constructivism to machine learning: A pilot study in assistive robotics. Constructivist Foundations 13(2): 250–262. http://constructivist.info/13/2/250

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Nowak M., Castellini C. & Massironi C. (2018) Authors’ Response: Radical Constructivism in Machine Learning: We Want More!

Müller K. H. (2010) The Radical Constructivist Movement and Its Network Formations

Quale A. (2014) Ethics: A Radical-constructivist Approach

Ulrich C., Tillema E. S., Hackenberg A. J. & Norton A. (2014) Constructivist Model Building: Empirical Examples From Mathematics Education

Bednarz N. & Proulx J. (2011) Ernst von Glasersfeld’s Contribution and Legacy to a Didactique des Mathématiques Research Community

References

Card S. K., Newell A. & Moran T. P. (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ. << Google Scholar

Castellini C. (2016) Incremental learning of muscle synergies: From calibration to interaction. In: Bianchi M. & Moscatelli A. (eds.) Human and robot hands: Sensorimotor synergies to bridge the gap between neuroscience and robotics. Springer, New York: 171–193. << Google Scholar

Castellini C., Artemiadis P., Wininger M., Ajoudani A., Alimusaj M., Bicchi A., Caputo B., Craelius W., Dosen S., Englehart K., Farina D., Gijsberts A., Godfrey S., Hargrove L., Ison M., Kuiken T., Markovic M., Pilarski P., Rupp R. & Scheme E. (2014) Proceedings of the first workshop on peripheral machine interfaces: Going beyond traditional surface electromyography. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 8: 22. << Google Scholar

Connan M., Ruiz Ramírez E., Vodermayer B. & Castellini C. (2016) Assessment of a wearable force- and electromyography device and comparison of the related signals for myocontrol. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 10: 17. << Google Scholar

Fails J. A. & Olsen D. R. (2003) Interactive machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces (IUI ’03) ACM, New York NY: 39–45. << Google Scholar

Farina D., Jiang N. & Rehbaum H. (2014) The extraction of neural information from the surface EMG for the control of upper-limb prostheses: Emerging avenues and challenges. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 22(4): 797–809. << Google Scholar

Fisher R. A. (1936) The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Human Genetics 7(2): 179–188. << Google Scholar

Fougner A., Stavdahl Ø., Kyberd P. J., Losier Y. G. & Parker P. A. (2012) Control of upper limb prostheses: Terminology and proportional myoelectric control – A review. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 20(5): 663–677. << Google Scholar

Gergen K. J. & Gergen M. (eds.) (1985) Historical social psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ. << Google Scholar

Gergen K. J. (1978) Experimentation in social psychology: A reappraisal. European Journal of Social Psychology 8: 507–527. << Google Scholar

Gergen K. J. (1978) Toward generative theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(11): 1344–1360. << Google Scholar

Gergen K. J. (1985) The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist 40(3): 266–275. << Google Scholar

Gijsberts A., Bohra R., Sierra González D., Werner A., Nowak M., Caputo B., Roa Garzón M. A. & Castellini C. (2014) Stable myoelectric control of a hand prosthesis using non-linear incremental learning. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 8: 8. << Google Scholar

Glasersfeld E. von (1983) Learning as constructive activity. In: Bergeron J. C. & Herscovics N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the North American Group of Psychology in Mathematics Education, Vol. 1. PME-NA, Montreal: 41–101. Available at http://cepa.info/1373

Glasersfeld E. von (1995) Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. Falmer, London. Available at http://cepa.info/1462

Hahne J., Markovic M. & Farina D. (2017) User adaptation in myoelectric man-machine Interfaces. Scientific Reports 7: 4437. << Google Scholar

Harré R. (1979) Social being: A theory for social psychology. Blackwell, Oxford. << Google Scholar

Harré R. (ed.) (1986) The social construction of emotions. Blackwell, Oxford. << Google Scholar

Harré R., Smith J. & van Langenhove L. (eds.) (1995) Rethinking psychological methods. Sage, London. << Google Scholar

Iturrate I., Chavarriaga R., Montesano L., Minguez J. & del R. Millán J. (2015) Teaching brain-machine interfaces as an alternative paradigm to neuroprosthetics control. Scientific Reports 5: 13893. << Google Scholar

Jiang N., Dosen S., Müller K. R. & Farina D. (2012) Myoelectric control of artificial limbs: Is there a need to change focus? IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 29(5): 148–152. << Google Scholar

Lock B., Simon A. M., Stubblefield K. & Hargrove L. (2011) Prosthesis-guided training for practical use of pattern recognition control of prostheses. In: Parker P. A. (ed.) MEC ’11 Raising the standard. UNB, Fredericton: 61–64. << Google Scholar

Mathewson K. W. & Pilarski P. M. (2017) Reinforcement learning based embodied agents modelling human users through interaction and multi-sensory perception. In: AAAI spring symposium on interactive multi-sensory object perception for embodied agents, March 27–29, Stanford University, USA: 477–481. << Google Scholar

Micera S., Carpaneto J. & Raspopovic S. (2010) Control of hand prostheses using peripheral information. IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 3: 48–68. << Google Scholar

Peerdeman B., Boere D., Witteveen H., in ’t Veld R. H., Hermens H., Stramigioli S., Rietman H., Veltink P. & Misra S. (2011) Myoelectric forearm prostheses: State of the art from a user-centered perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 48(6): 719–738. << Google Scholar

Ravindra V. & Castellini C. (2014) A comparative analysis of three non-invasive human-machine interfaces for the disabled. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 8: 24. << Google Scholar

Samuel A. L. (1959) Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development 3(3): 210–229. << Google Scholar

Sarkar A. (2016) Constructivist design for interactive machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (CHI EA ’16) ACM, New York: 1467–1475. << Google Scholar

Schweitzer W., Thali M. J. & Egger D. (2018) Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: Bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 15: 1. << Google Scholar

Shalev-Shwartz S. & Ben-David S. (2014) Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms. Cambridge University Press, New York. << Google Scholar

Simon A. M., Hargrove L. J., Lock B. A. & Kuiken T. A. (2011) Target achievement control test: Evaluating real-time myoelectric pattern-recognition control of multifunctional upper-limb prostheses. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development 48(6): 619–628. << Google Scholar

Simon A. M., Lock B. A. & Stubblefield K. A. (2012) Patient training for functional use of pattern recognition–controlled prostheses. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 24(2): 56–64. << Google Scholar

Strazzulla I., Nowak M., Controzzi M., Cipriani C. & Castellini C. (2017) Online bimanual manipulation using surface electromyography and incremental learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 25: 227–234. << Google Scholar

Wagstaff K. L. (2012) Machine learning that matters. In: Langford J. & Pineau J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 29th international conference on machine learning (ICML-12) Omnipress, Madison WI: 529–536. << Google Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.