Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: User experience

Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 318-329

  Resnik, Linda ^a,b   Klinger, Shana Lieberman ^a   Etter, Katherine ^a,b   Fantini, Christopher ^c  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

Author keywords

Amputation; Assistive technology; Control schemes; Prosthetics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARM; DISABLED PERSON; FEMALE; FOOT; HUMAN; LIMB PROSTHESIS; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REHABILITATION;

ADULT; AMPUTEES; ARTIFICIAL LIMBS; FEMALE; FOOT; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; UPPER EXTREMITY;

EID: 84901941656     PISSN: 17483107     EISSN: 17483115     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17483107.2013.822024     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Resnik L, Klinger S, Etter K. The DEKA Arm: Its features, functionality and evolution. Manuscript Under Review; 2013.
2. Altobelli D, Coulter S, Perry C. Design considerations in upper extremity prostheses. MEC '11 Raising the Standard'. Fredericton, New Brunswick: Canada University of New Brunswick, Institute of Biomedical Engineering; 2011.
3. Wright TW, Hagen AD, Wood MB. Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations. J Hand Surg [Am] 1995;20:619-22.
4. McFarland LV, Winkler SLH, Heinemann AW, et al. Unilateral upper-limb loss: satisfaction and prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehab Res Dev 2010;47:299-316.
5. Biddiss E, Beaton D, Chau T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2007;2:346-57.
6. Alderson S. Electrically operated artificial arm for the above the elbow amputee, U.S.P. Office, Editor. 1052: United States.
7. Graupe D, Beex AA, Monlux WJ, et al. A multifunctional prosthesis control system based on time series identification of EMG signals using microprocessors. Bull Prosthet Res 1977;10:4-16. (Pubitemid 8282374)
8. Graupe D. Control of upper limb prostheses in several degrees of freedom. Bull Pros Res 1972;Fall:25-39.
9. Luzzio CC. Controlling an artificial arm with foot movements. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2000;14:207-12.
10. Ghiyasvand M. Graded levels of foot control for below elbow prosthesis. First International IEEE Conference on Neural Engineering; 2003; Capri Island, Italy.
11. Carrozza MC, Persichetti A, Laschi C, et al. A wearable biomechotronic interface for controlling robots with voluntary foot movements. Transact Mechatronics 2007;12:1-11. (Pubitemid 46444213)
12. Carrozza M. A novel wearable interface for robotic hand prostheses. 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2005; Chicago, Illinois.
13. Childress D. Upper-limb prosthetics: control of limb prostheses. In: Bowker H, Michael J, eds. Atlas of limbprosthetics: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. Rosemont (IL): American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1992.
14. Resnik L, Etter K, Klinger SL, et al. Using virtual reality environment to facilitate training with advanced upper-limb prosthesis. J Rehabil Res Dev 2011;48:707-18.
15. Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles (CA): Sage Publications; 2009.
16. Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications; 1990.