OBJECTIVE: To compare 3 different types of myoelectric signal training. DESIGN: A cohort analytic study. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Able-bodied right-handed participants (N=34) randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. INTERVENTIONS: Participants trained hand opening and closing on 3 consecutive days. One group trained with a virtual myoelectric hand presented on a computer screen, 1 group trained with an isolated prosthetic hand, and 1 group trained with a prosthetic simulator. One half of the participants trained with their dominant side, and the other half trained with their nondominant side. Before and after the training period, a test was administered to determine the improvement in skill. Participants were asked to open and close the hand on 3 different velocities at command. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peak velocity, mean velocity, and number of peaks in the myoelectric signal of hand opening and closing. RESULTS: No differences were found for the different types of training; all participants learned to control the myoelectric hand. However, differences in learning abilities were revealed. After learning, a subgroup of the participants could produce clearly distinct myoelectric signals, which resulted in the ability to open and close the hand at 3 different speeds, whereas others could not produce distinct myoelectric signals. CONCLUSIONS: Acquired control of a myoelectric hand is irrespective of the type of training. Prosthetic users may differ in learning capacity; this should be taken into account when choosing the appropriate type of control for each patient.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare 3 different types of myoelectric signal training. DESIGN: A cohort analytic study. SETTING: University laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Able-bodied right-handed participants (N=34) randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups. INTERVENTIONS:Participants trained hand opening and closing on 3 consecutive days. One group trained with a virtual myoelectric hand presented on a computer screen, 1 group trained with an isolated prosthetic hand, and 1 group trained with a prosthetic simulator. One half of the participants trained with their dominant side, and the other half trained with their nondominant side. Before and after the training period, a test was administered to determine the improvement in skill. Participants were asked to open and close the hand on 3 different velocities at command. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peak velocity, mean velocity, and number of peaks in the myoelectric signal of hand opening and closing. RESULTS: No differences were found for the different types of training; all participants learned to control the myoelectric hand. However, differences in learning abilities were revealed. After learning, a subgroup of the participants could produce clearly distinct myoelectric signals, which resulted in the ability to open and close the hand at 3 different speeds, whereas others could not produce distinct myoelectric signals. CONCLUSIONS: Acquired control of a myoelectric hand is irrespective of the type of training. Prosthetic users may differ in learning capacity; this should be taken into account when choosing the appropriate type of control for each patient.
Authors: William F Cusack; Rebecca Patterson; Scott Thach; Robert S Kistenberg; Lewis A Wheaton Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: William F Cusack; Scott Thach; Rebecca Patterson; Dan Acker; Robert S Kistenberg; Lewis A Wheaton Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Aidan Dominic Roche; Ivan Vujaklija; Sebastian Amsüss; Agnes Sturma; Peter Göbel; Dario Farina; Oskar C Aszmann Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Mohammad M D Sobuh; Laurence P J Kenney; Adam J Galpin; Sibylle B Thies; Jane McLaughlin; Jai Kulkarni; Peter Kyberd Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2014-04-23 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Riemer J K Vegter; Claudine J Lamoth; Sonja de Groot; Dirkjan H E J Veeger; Lucas H V van der Woude Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240