Introduction to Upper Limb Prosthetics

Farina, Dario; Jensen, Winnie; Akay, Metin

doi:10.1002/9781118628522.ch14

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among many other concerns, individuals with upper limb loss have reported a desire for prostheses with improved dexterity (including independent movement of the fingers and arm joints, increased range of motion, and wider variety of grasp patterns) [ 2 , 3 ]. The utility of such a prosthesis would be significant in comparison to most current commercially available prostheses, which permit only one degree of freedom (open/close) [ 4 , 5 ] and can be cumbersome to use. Ultimately, this suggests that acceptance of a prosthesis may be improved if individuals with upper limb loss could be given multi-articulated prostheses that mimic the anatomic and physiologic complexity of the natural human arm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method commonly relies on a “direct” control scheme in which signals from an agonist/antagonist pair of muscles are used to control a single degree of freedom in the prosthesis [ 9 ]. It is generally possible to record only two independent signals from the residual limb [ 4 , 7 ] due to muscle cross-talk and co-activation, which limits the number of degrees of freedom that can be controlled. These sites may also be physiologically unrelated to the desired movement of the prosthesis [ 9 ], making the prosthesis unintuitive to use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors associated with interest in novel interfaces for upper limb prosthesis control

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSurgically invasive interfaces for upper limb prosthesis control may allow users to operate advanced, multi-articulated devices. Given the potential medical risks of these invasive interfaces, it is important to understand what factors influence an individual’s decision to try one.MethodsWe conducted an anonymous online survey of individuals with upper limb loss. A total of 232 participants provided personal information (such as age, amputation level, etc.) and rated how likely they would be to try noninvasive (myoelectric) and invasive (targeted muscle reinnervation, peripheral nerve interfaces, cortical interfaces) interfaces for prosthesis control. Bivariate relationships between interest in each interface and 16 personal descriptors were examined. Significant variables from the bivariate analyses were then entered into multiple logistic regression models to predict interest in each interface.ResultsWhile many of the bivariate relationships were significant, only a few variables remained significant in the regression models. The regression models showed that participants were more likely to be interested in all interfaces if they had unilateral limb loss (p ≤ 0.001, odds ratio ≥ 2.799). Participants were more likely to be interested in the three invasive interfaces if they were younger (p < 0.001, odds ratio ≤ 0.959) and had acquired limb loss (p ≤ 0.012, odds ratio ≥ 3.287). Participants who used a myoelectric device were more likely to be interested in myoelectric control than those who did not (p = 0.003, odds ratio = 24.958).ConclusionsNovel prosthesis control interfaces may be accepted most readily by individuals who are young, have unilateral limb loss, and/or have acquired limb loss However, this analysis did not include all possible factors that may have influenced participant’s opinions on the interfaces, so additional exploration is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors associated with interest in novel interfaces for upper limb prosthesis control

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For UL amputees, existing commercial prosthetic hands offer single-DOF actuator designs to open and close the fingers and thumb, such as Ottobock’s Sensorhand Speed, products from Motion Control Inc. and RLSSteeper Inc., or multiple-DOF actuator designs with articulated fingers, such as the Touch Bionics i-LIMB and the BeBionic hand [ 9 ]. The Otto Bock Michelangelo hand is a combination of fully articulated and single-DOF hand-design [ 9 ]. More actuated DOFs, various grasps, and control mechanisms are provided by several intrinsically actuated (actuation, transmission, and control elements are embedded in the prosthetic) prosthetic hands.…”

Section: Technological Synergies Driving Neural Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More actuated DOFs, various grasps, and control mechanisms are provided by several intrinsically actuated (actuation, transmission, and control elements are embedded in the prosthetic) prosthetic hands. Such hands are the Fluidhands, the DLR hands, the Cyberhand, and the Smarthand [ 9 ]. The need to transmit sensory feedback from the prosthesis [ 187 ] led to the development of the Modular Prosthetic Limb (MPL) with 26 articulated and 17 controllable DOFs with bidirectional capability and the DEKA arm, which provides powered movement complemented by surgical procedures (such as TMSR) for sophisticated control over multiple joints [ 8 ].…”

Section: Technological Synergies Driving Neural Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not all relevant technologies have evolved though at the same pace. Compared to wearable exoskeletons, the field of neuroprosthetics has experienced significant longstanding technological advances that led up to this point to larger clinical and market applications [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Such devices can facilitate neuroplasticity via targeted and repetitive exercises for the lower [ 2 ] and upper limbs [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Converging Robotic Technologies in Targeted Neural Rehabilitation: A Review of Emerging Solutions and Challenges

Nizamis

Athanasiou

Almpani

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances in the field of neural rehabilitation, facilitated through technological innovation and improved neurophysiological knowledge of impaired motor control, have opened up new research directions. Such advances increase the relevance of existing interventions, as well as allow novel methodologies and technological synergies. New approaches attempt to partially overcome long-term disability caused by spinal cord injury, using either invasive bridging technologies or noninvasive human–machine interfaces. Muscular dystrophies benefit from electromyography and novel sensors that shed light on underlying neuromotor mechanisms in people with Duchenne. Novel wearable robotics devices are being tailored to specific patient populations, such as traumatic brain injury, stroke, and amputated individuals. In addition, developments in robot-assisted rehabilitation may enhance motor learning and generate movement repetitions by decoding the brain activity of patients during therapy. This is further facilitated by artificial intelligence algorithms coupled with faster electronics. The practical impact of integrating such technologies with neural rehabilitation treatment can be substantial. They can potentially empower nontechnically trained individuals—namely, family members and professional carers—to alter the programming of neural rehabilitation robotic setups, to actively get involved and intervene promptly at the point of care. This narrative review considers existing and emerging neural rehabilitation technologies through the perspective of replacing or restoring functions, enhancing, or improving natural neural output, as well as promoting or recruiting dormant neuroplasticity. Upon conclusion, we discuss the future directions for neural rehabilitation research, diagnosis, and treatment based on the discussed technologies and their major roadblocks. This future may eventually become possible through technological evolution and convergence of mutually beneficial technologies to create hybrid solutions.

show abstract

A model of electrical impedance tomography implemented in nerve-cuff for neural-prosthetics control

Hope¹,

Vanholsbeeck²,

McDaid³

2018

Physiol. Meas.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Introduction to Upper Limb Prosthetics

Cited by 9 publications

References 52 publications

Factors associated with interest in novel interfaces for upper limb prosthesis control

Factors associated with interest in novel interfaces for upper limb prosthesis control

Converging Robotic Technologies in Targeted Neural Rehabilitation: A Review of Emerging Solutions and Challenges

A model of electrical impedance tomography implemented in nerve-cuff for neural-prosthetics control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About