Source: OAI

ABSTRACT To achieve subconscious prosthetic control the patient feedback present must be employed as completely as possible. This implies the use of control methods based upon the principles of extended physiological proprioception. The harnessing of body movements has the inherent ability to fully employ the principles of extended physiological proprioception. However, the present harnessing techniques often fail to do so and are generally of a dreadful engineering quality. Myoelectrical control must be considered as an open loop system. It lacks by principle any useful feedback. The challenge for the prosthetic profession is to focus research on [improvement of] control options that comply with the rules of extended physiological proprioception. Promising future control options may result from the research into miniature cineplasties, in combination with neuro-muscular reorganization, and from the research into neuroelectrodes.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: More than 6,600 one-page surveys were sent to individuals throughout the country with upper-limb loss or absence. Of those surveys, 2,477 were returned, and demographic information was recorded. A more comprehensive seven-page survey was then sent to the respondents who agreed to participate. A total of 1,575 of these surveys were returned: 1,020 by body-powered users, 438 by electric users and 117 by bilateral users of prostheses. The results of the surveys indicate users of body-powered and electric prostheses identify surprisingly similar elements as necessary in the design of a better upper-limb prosthesis. These qualities include additional wrist movement, better control mechanisms that require less visual attention and the ability to make coordinated motions of two joints. Desired near-term improvements for body-powered prostheses include better cables and harness comfort, whereas those for electric prostheses include better gloving material, better batteries and charging units, and improved reliability for the hand and its electrodes. This article discusses the specific functions that various levels of upper-extremity amputees gain from their prostheses as well as the device features that aid or detract from their functions. (C) 1996 American Academy of Orthotists & Prosthetists
    JPO Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 12/1995; 8(1).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For unilateral below-elbow amputated children a new elbow-controlled hand prosthesis has been developed. Since the triceps of young children have insufficient power to activate normal spring-closing hands, a special mechanism with low operating power has been developed for this prosthesis. A stiff spring gives a good gripping force. When the elbow is slightly extended this spring is switched off, and by further extension the hand is opened against a weak spring. So far, six children have used this special prosthesis. Their initial enthusiasm resulted in an improved system, which is now being designed.
    Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology 01/1989; 13(1-2):129-33.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A post-clinical investigation has been carried out among 42 unilateral amputees who lost their hand due to an accident. The investigation was directed at two main topics of interest. Firstly the amputee, the problems he has to cope with, and the role the prosthesis plays in his life; and secondly the prosthesis, its use and its potential benefits and burdens. The group of amputees consisted of above-elbow and below-elbow amputees. Body powered as well as myoelectric prostheses were represented in the group. Most of the information was obtained during a two-day home visit where a semi-structured interview was conducted, and where a number of daily life activities were observed. The information thus obtained has led to a number of conclusions and recommendations with respect to the rehabilitation of this category of amputees, and with respect to the design criteria of prostheses for unilateral amputees.
    Prosthetics and Orthotics International 01/1984; 7(3):141-51. · 1.07 Impact Factor


Available from