Quantitative assessment of four men using above-elbow prosthetic control.

We studied the relationship between kinematically unconstrained activities of daily living (ADL) tasks and a kinematically constrained task in above-elbow (AE) amputee subjects using myoelectrically controlled prostheses. Four men, 24 to 49 years old, with unilateral AE amputation wore a prosthesis interfaced to a programmable controller to emulate two different elbow control schemes, conventional velocity and a new "natural" controller. Subjects were timed during three ADL tasks--cutting meat, donning socks, and rolling dough--with both controllers. The prosthesis emulator was then connected to a crank device with a handle, and the subjects turned the crank from bottom to top positions in a vertical plane using each controller. Synergistic shoulder-elbow joint coordination required for crank turning was quantified as the maximum slope of the change in elbow torque versus the change in crank-angle. Performance between the two controllers differed significantly for the crank test but not for ADL tasks. One subject did not complete all crank turning tests. Positive canonical correlation of 0.77 was found between time and crank domain measures. We conclude that biomechanical assessments should be integrated with time-based clinical tests to comprehensively evaluate performance of AE amputee subjects with a myoelectric device.

[1]  R. Malgady,et al.  Understanding correlation coefficients and regression. , 1986, Physical therapy.

[2]  Donald Leslie Russell,et al.  An analysis of constrained motions in manipulation , 1990 .

[3]  Kottke Fj,et al.  The training of coordination. , 1978, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[4]  R B Stein,et al.  Functional comparison of upper extremity amputees using myoelectric and conventional prostheses. , 1983, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[5]  A. Gentile,et al.  Skill acquisition : Action, movement, and neuromotor processes , 1987 .

[6]  Richard T. Johnson,et al.  Development of the Utah Artificial Arm , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Impedance Control: An Approach to Manipulation , 1984, 1984 American Control Conference.

[8]  M. Thyberg,et al.  Prosthetic rehabilitation in bilateral high above elbow amputation. , 2020, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[9]  D W Lamb,et al.  A new prosthesis for the upper limb. , 1988, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[10]  Neville Hogan,et al.  Dealing with constraints: a biomechanical approach , 1989, Images of the Twenty-First Century. Proceedings of the Annual International Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society,.

[11]  Krebs De.  The fallacy of qualitative performance tests. , 1985 .

[12]  Cathy D. Dolhi.  Prehension Assessment: Prosthetic Therapy for the Upper-Limb Child Amputee , 1988 .

[13]  C.J. Abul-Haj,et al.  Functional assessment of control systems for cybernetic elbow prostheses. I. Description of the technique , 1990, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  H. Dr,et al.  Separate cortical systems for control of joint movement and joint stiffness: reciprocal activation and coactivation of antagonist muscles. , 1983 .