Differences in quality of movements made with body-powered and myoelectric prostheses during activities of daily living

Engdahl, Susannah M.; Gates, Deanna H.

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105311

Cited by 16 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, the trajectories of the prosthetic and non-amputated hands were globally similar, in particular the forward displacement of the hand was identical on both sides. However, on the prosthetic side the trajectory was more curved according to object PLOS ONE distance as already observed [50]. The global hand displacement during reaching was slightly higher and less internally on the prosthetic side.…”

Section: Spatial Organization Of Hand Trajectory and Inter-joint Conf...supporting

confidence: 68%

“…The maximum velocity (but not the acceleration duration) was scaled to target distance on both sides. This suggests that the reaching and grasping components were not performed in parallel but sequentially, consistently with [49][50][51]. Certainly some authors describe that non-sequential prosthetic movement is possible with Wing and Fraser observing a child (13 years old) with a congenital absence of a fore-arm who used a mechanical prothesis since her early age; she could pre-shape her prosthesis during a slower reaching followed by a faster closure than on the non-amputated side [52,53].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Certainly some authors describe that non-sequential prosthetic movement is possible with Wing and Fraser observing a child (13 years old) with a congenital absence of a fore-arm who used a mechanical prothesis since her early age; she could pre-shape her prosthesis during a slower reaching followed by a faster closure than on the non-amputated side [52,53]. However, more recent studies in adults showed that the prosthetic reaching movements were generally slower, less rectilinear and less smooth than physiological movements [49][50][51] with a temporal decoupling of the reaching and grasping components [49,51]. Sequential control of prosthetic hand opening and pronosupination could participate in this phenomenon.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bouwsema et al [49] included six participants three of them had upper arm amputation and used a combination of myoelectric hand and mechanical elbow (hybrid control), the three others had a transradial amputation and used myoelectric prosthesis. Engdahl et al [50] included nine participants with transradial amputation using myoelectric or body-powered prostheses. So that, the mechanism of the decoupling between reaching and grasping remains unclear.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Kinematic analysis of impairments and compensatory motor behavior during prosthetic grasping in below-elbow amputees

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After a major upper limb amputation, the use of myoelectric prosthesis as assistive devices is possible. However, these prostheses remain quite difficult to control for grasping and manipulation of daily life objects. The aim of the present observational case study is to document the kinematics of grasping in a group of 10 below-elbow amputated patients fitted with a myoelectric prosthesis in order to describe and better understand their compensatory strategies. They performed a grasping to lift task toward 3 objects (a mug, a cylinder and a cone) placed at two distances within the reaching area in front of the patients. The kinematics of the trunk and upper-limb on the non-amputated and prosthetic sides were recorded with 3 electromagnetic Polhemus sensors placed on the hand, the forearm (or the corresponding site on the prosthesis) and the ipsilateral acromion. The 3D position of the elbow joint and the shoulder and elbow angles were calculated thanks to a preliminary calibration of the sensor position. We examined first the effect of side, distance and objects with non-parametric statistics. Prosthetic grasping was characterized by severe temporo-spatial impairments consistent with previous clinical or kinematic observations. The grasping phase was prolonged and the reaching and grasping components uncoupled. The 3D hand displacement was symmetrical in average, but with some differences according to the objects. Compensatory strategies involved the trunk and the proximal part of the upper-limb, as shown by a greater 3D displacement of the elbow for close target and a greater forward displacement of the acromion, particularly for far targets. The hand orientation at the time of grasping showed marked side differences with a more frontal azimuth, and a more “thumb-up” roll. The variation of hand orientation with the object on the prosthetic side, suggested that the lack of finger and wrist mobility imposed some adaptation of hand pose relative to the object. The detailed kinematic analysis allows more insight into the mechanisms of the compensatory strategies that could be due to both increased distal or proximal kinematic constraints. A better knowledge of those compensatory strategies is important for the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders and the development of innovative prosthetics.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Organization Of Hand Trajectory and Inter-joint Conf...supporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Kinematic analysis of impairments and compensatory motor behavior during prosthetic grasping in below-elbow amputees

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since more investigation is needed for artificial feedback, body-powered prostheses will continue to prevail in embodiment issue in the meantime. While few differences were found in the quality of control between prosthesis types, myoelectric prostheses showed smoother control during object manipulation in two out of six tasks while being similar in the other four tasks (Engdahl & Gates, 2021). While many engineers pushed for myoelectric prosthesis for its lifelike appearance, a series of problems remains to be solved in gesture recognition.…”

Section: Upper Limb Prosthesesmentioning

confidence: 95%