↓ Skip to main content

The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
365 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Reality of Myoelectric Prostheses: Understanding What Makes These Devices Difficult for Some Users to Control
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2016.00007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alix Chadwell, Laurence Kenney, Sibylle Thies, Adam Galpin, John Head

Abstract

Users of myoelectric prostheses can often find them difficult to control. This can lead to passive-use of the device or total rejection, which can have detrimental effects on the contralateral limb due to overuse. Current clinically available prostheses are "open loop" systems, and although considerable effort has been focused on developing biofeedback to "close the loop," there is evidence from laboratory-based studies that other factors, notably improving predictability of response, may be as, if not more, important. Interestingly, despite a large volume of research aimed at improving myoelectric prostheses, it is not currently known which aspect of clinically available systems has the greatest impact on overall functionality and everyday usage. A protocol has, therefore, been designed to assess electromyographic (EMG) skill of the user and predictability of the prosthesis response as significant parts of the control chain, and to relate these to functionality and everyday usage. Here, we present the protocol and results from early pilot work. A set of experiments has been developed. First, to characterize user skill in generating the required level of EMG signal, as well as the speed with which users are able to make the decision to activate the appropriate muscles. Second, to measure unpredictability introduced at the skin-electrode interface, in order to understand the effects of the socket-mounted electrode fit under different loads on the variability of time taken for the prosthetic hand to respond. To evaluate prosthesis user functionality, four different outcome measures are assessed. Using a simple upper limb functional task prosthesis users are assessed for (1) success of task completion, (2) task duration, (3) quality of movement, and (4) gaze behavior. To evaluate everyday usage away from the clinic, the symmetricity of their real-world arm use is assessed using activity monitoring. These methods will later be used to assess a prosthesis user cohort to establish the relative contribution of each control factor to the individual measures of functionality and everyday usage (using multiple regression models). The results will support future researchers, designers, and clinicians in concentrating their efforts on the area that will have the greatest impact on improving prosthesis use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 365 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 364 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 21%
Student > Master 69 19%
Student > Bachelor 56 15%
Researcher 28 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 27 7%
Unknown 91 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 154 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 7%
Computer Science 16 4%
Neuroscience 14 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 3%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 111 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2023.
All research outputs
#3,059,779
of 25,847,449 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#60
of 1,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,056
of 356,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,847,449 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,057 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 356,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them