Literature DB >> 36001115

Artificial referred sensation in upper and lower limb prosthesis users: a systematic review.

Michael Gonzalez1, Alex Bismuth2, Christina Lee3, Cynthia A Chestek3, Deanna H Gates2.   

Abstract

Objective.Electrical stimulation can induce sensation in the phantom limb of individuals with amputation. It is difficult to generalize existing findings as there are many approaches to delivering stimulation and to assessing the characteristics and benefits of sensation. Therefore, the goal of this systematic review was to explore the stimulation parameters that effectively elicited referred sensation, the qualities of elicited sensation, and how the utility of referred sensation was assessed.Approach.We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Engineering Village through January of 2022 to identify relevant papers. We included papers which electrically induced referred sensation in individuals with limb loss and excluded papers that did not contain stimulation parameters or outcome measures pertaining to stimulation. We extracted information on participant demographics, stimulation approaches, and participant outcomes.Main results.After applying exclusion criteria, 49 papers were included covering nine stimulation methods. Amplitude was the most commonly adjusted parameter (n= 25), followed by frequency (n= 22), and pulse width (n= 15). Of the 63 reports of sensation quality, most reported feelings of pressure (n= 52), paresthesia (n= 48), or vibration (n= 40) while less than half (n= 29) reported a sense of position or movement. Most papers evaluated the functional benefits of sensation (n= 33) using force matching or object identification tasks, while fewer papers quantified subjective measures (n= 16) such as pain or embodiment. Only 15 studies (36%) observed percept intensity, quality, or location over multiple sessions.Significance.Most studies that measured functional performance demonstrated some benefit to providing participants with sensory feedback. However, few studies could experimentally manipulate sensation location or quality. Direct comparisons between studies were limited by variability in methodologies and outcome measures. As such, we offer recommendations to aid in more standardized reporting for future research.
© 2022 IOP Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  amputation; feedback; referred sensation; stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36001115      PMCID: PMC9514130          DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/ac8c38

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neural Eng        ISSN: 1741-2552            Impact factor:   5.043


  84 in total

1.  Non-Invasive, Temporally Discrete Feedback of Object Contact and Release Improves Grasp Control of Closed-Loop Myoelectric Transradial Prostheses.

Authors:  Francesco Clemente; Marco D'Alonzo; Marco Controzzi; Benoni B Edin; Christian Cipriani
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2015-11-13       Impact factor: 3.802

2.  Biomimetic Intraneural Sensory Feedback Enhances Sensation Naturalness, Tactile Sensitivity, and Manual Dexterity in a Bidirectional Prosthesis.

Authors:  Giacomo Valle; Alberto Mazzoni; Francesco Iberite; Edoardo D'Anna; Ivo Strauss; Giuseppe Granata; Marco Controzzi; Francesco Clemente; Giulio Rognini; Christian Cipriani; Thomas Stieglitz; Francesco Maria Petrini; Paolo Maria Rossini; Silvestro Micera
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2018-09-20       Impact factor: 17.173

3.  Artificial redirection of sensation from prosthetic fingers to the phantom hand map on transradial amputees: vibrotactile versus mechanotactile sensory feedback.

Authors:  Christian Antfolk; Marco D'Alonzo; Marco Controzzi; Göran Lundborg; Birgitta Rosén; Fredrik Sebelius; Christian Cipriani
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.802

Review 4.  Paradigms for restoration of somatosensory feedback via stimulation of the peripheral nervous system.

Authors:  Cristian Pasluosta; Patrick Kiele; Thomas Stieglitz
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Enhancing functional abilities and cognitive integration of the lower limb prosthesis.

Authors:  Francesco Maria Petrini; Giacomo Valle; Marko Bumbasirevic; Federica Barberi; Dario Bortolotti; Paul Cvancara; Arthur Hiairrassary; Pavle Mijovic; Atli Örn Sverrisson; Alessandra Pedrocchi; Jean-Louis Divoux; Igor Popovic; Knut Lechler; Bogdan Mijovic; David Guiraud; Thomas Stieglitz; Asgeir Alexandersson; Silvestro Micera; Aleksandar Lesic; Stanisa Raspopovic
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 17.956

6.  Evoking haptic sensations in the foot through high-density transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulations.

Authors:  Lizhi Pan; Luis Vargas; Aaron Fleming; Xiaogang Hu; Yong Zhu; He Helen Huang
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 5.379

7.  Effects of short-term training on sensory and motor function in severed nerves of long-term human amputees.

Authors:  G S Dhillon; T B Krüger; J S Sandhu; K W Horch
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050.

Authors:  Kathryn Ziegler-Graham; Ellen J MacKenzie; Patti L Ephraim; Thomas G Travison; Ron Brookmeyer
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.966

9.  Hand Control With Invasive Feedback Is Not Impaired by Increased Cognitive Load.

Authors:  Giacomo Valle; Edoardo D'Anna; Ivo Strauss; Francesco Clemente; Giuseppe Granata; Riccardo Di Iorio; Marco Controzzi; Thomas Stieglitz; Paolo M Rossini; Francesco M Petrini; Silvestro Micera
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2020-04-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.