Literature DB >> 24933723

Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life.

Kelsey Berning1, Sarah Cohick, Reva Johnson, Laura Ann Miller, Jonathon W Sensinger.   

Abstract

Persons with an upper-limb amputation who use a body-powered prosthesis typically control the prehensor through contralateral shoulder movement, which is transmitted through a Bowden cable. Increased cable tension either opens or closes the prehensor; when tension is released, some passive element, such as a spring, returns the prehensor to the default state (closed or open). In this study, we used the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure to examine functional differences between these two types of prehensors in 29 nondisabled subjects (who used a body-powered bypass prosthesis) and 2 persons with unilateral transradial amputations (who used a conventional body-powered device). We also administered a survey to determine whether subjects preferred one prehensor or the other for specific tasks, with a long-term goal of assessing whether a prehensor that could switch between both modes would be advantageous. We found that using the voluntary closing prehensor was 1.3 s faster (p = 0.02) than using the voluntary opening prehensor, across tasks, and that there was consensus among subjects on which types of tasks they preferred to do with each prehensor type. Twenty-five subjects wanted a device that could switch between the two modes in order to perform particular tasks.

Entities:  

Keywords:  amputation; artificial limbs; body-powered prostheses; grasp; outcomes assessment; prehensor; prosthesis zzm321990design; terminal device; voluntary closing; voluntary opening

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24933723     DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev        ISSN: 0748-7711


  8 in total

Review 1.  Neural interfaces for somatosensory feedback: bringing life to a prosthesis.

Authors:  Dustin J Tyler
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.710

2.  Grip Force Control Using Prosthetic and Anatomical Limbs.

Authors:  Michael S Trujillo; Daniel M Russell; David I Anderson; Marilyn Mitchell
Journal:  J Prosthet Orthot       Date:  2018-07

3.  Learning to use a body-powered prosthesis: changes in functionality and kinematics.

Authors:  Laura H B Huinink; Hanneke Bouwsema; Dick H Plettenburg; Corry K van der Sluis; Raoul M Bongers
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 4.262

4.  Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment.

Authors:  Wolf Schweitzer; Michael J Thali; David Egger
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 4.262

5.  Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics.

Authors:  Conor Bloomer; Kimberly L Kontson
Journal:  Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl       Date:  2020-04-25

6.  Application of machine learning to the identification of joint degrees of freedom involved in abnormal movement during upper limb prosthesis use.

Authors:  Sophie L Wang; Conor Bloomer; Gene Civillico; Kimberly Kontson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Myoelectric prosthesis users and non-disabled individuals wearing a simulated prosthesis exhibit similar compensatory movement strategies.

Authors:  Heather E Williams; Craig S Chapman; Patrick M Pilarski; Albert H Vette; Jacqueline S Hebert
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.262

8.  Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users.

Authors:  Sophie L Wang; Gene Civillico; Wesley Niswander; Kimberly L Kontson
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 3.847

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.