Users’ and therapists’ perceptions of myoelectric multi-function upper limb prostheses with conventional and pattern recognition control

Abstract

Objective To describe users’ and therapists’ opinions on multi-function myoelectric upper limb prostheses with conventional control and pattern recognition control. Design Qualitative interview study. Settings Two rehabilitation institutions in the Netherlands and one in Austria. Subjects The study cohort consisted of 15 prosthesis users (13 males, mean age: 43.7 years, average experience with multi-function prosthesis: 3.15 years) and seven therapists (one male, mean age: 44.1 years, average experience with multi-function prostheses: 6.6 years). Four of these users and one therapist had experience with pattern recognition control. Method This study consisted of semi-structured interviews. The participants were interviewed at their rehabilitation centres or at home by telephone. The thematic framework approach was used for analysis. Results The themes emerging from prosthesis users and therapists were largely congruent and resulted in one thematic framework with three main themes: control, prosthesis, and activities. The participants mostly addressed (dis-) satisfaction with the control type and the prosthesis itself and described the way they used their prostheses in daily tasks. Conclusion Prosthesis users and therapists described multi-function upper limb prostheses as more functional devices than conventional one-degree-of-freedom prostheses. Nonetheless, the prostheses were seldom used to actively grasp and manipulate objects. Moreover, the participants clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the mechanical robustness of the devices and with the process of switching prosthesis function under conventional control. Pattern recognition was appreciated as an intuitive control that facilitated fast switching between prosthesis functions, but was reported to be too unreliable for daily use and require extensive training.

Neuromusculoskeletal Arm Prostheses: Personal and Social Implications of Living With an Intimately Integrated Bionic Arm

“…Whereas qualitative research has been limited and conducted in the context of less intimately integrated limb prostheses (Murray, 2004;Lundberg et al, 2011;Widehammar et al, 2018;Cuberovic et al, 2019;Franzke et al, 2019;Graczyk et al, 2019;Hansen et al, 2019), it has nevertheless shown that the perspectives and opinions of those impacted by such medical interventions form a particular kind of evidence and expertise (Murray, 2004). The embodied knowledge (Merleau-Ponty, 1962;Bourdieu, 1990) produced from firsthand experience is unique from data gathered from traditional quantitative methods, serving to complement and at times even challenge quantitative data.…”

Human Hand Anatomy-Based Prosthetic Hand

“…Actual EMG prosthetic hands require some different movements done by the user to choose a specific movement manipulation as well as the pressure applied to the object surface [ 30 ]. This specific movement as multiple muscle contractions in a short time are sometimes not well accepted by the users [ 31 ]. To correctly control the force applied to the objects and the adequate fingers movement, the prosthetic hand requires the use of force sensitive sensors applied to all fingers individually.…”

User training for machine learning controlled upper limb prostheses: a serious game approach

“…ML control can reveal the full potential of multiarticulate hands, as the clinical standard two-site “Direct Control” (DC) scheme is currently one of the main limiting factors in prosthetic control. In contrast to DC, ML control does not require isolated subsequent electromyographic (EMG) signals derived from two electrodes to control all available grip modes, but utilizes more intuitive control generated by patterns of muscle contractions [ 9 ]. However, ML control currently suffers from robustness issues while DC is faster in tasks that only require one degree of freedom (DoF) [ 4 , 6 ].…”