We studied the pressure patterns in the residual limbs of transradial amputees during their voluntary commands for finger taps. Topographic maps of pressures exerted against the hard prosthetic socket were registered with an array of 32 pressure sensors, to produce residual kinetic images (RKIs) of the limb. Results with 2 untrained subjects demonstrated that RKIs are reliable decoders of efferent commands. Coupled with a trained filter, RKIs can provide biomimetic control over multiple degrees of freedom.
During the development of a genetically modified (GM) crop product, extensive phenotypic and agronomic data are collected to characterize the plant in comparison to a conventional control with a similar genetic background. The data are evaluated for potential differences resulting from the genetic modification process or the GM trait, and the differences--if any--are subsequently considered in the context of contributing to the pest potential of the GM crop. Ultimately, these study results and those of other studies are used in an ecological risk assessment of the GM crop. In the studies reported here, seed germination, vegetative and reproductive growth, and pollen morphology of Roundup Ready 2 Yield(®) soybean, MON 89788, were compared to those of A3244, a conventional control soybean variety with the same genetic background. Any statistically significant differences were considered in the context of the genetic variation known to occur in soybean and were evaluated as indicators of an effect of the genetic modification process and assessed for impact on plant pest (weed) characteristics and adverse ecological impact (ecological risk). The results of these studies revealed no effects attributable to the genetic modification process or to the GM trait in the plant that would result in increased pest potential or adverse ecological impact of MON 89788 compared with A3244. These results and the associated risk assessments obtained from diverse geographic and environmental conditions in the United States and Argentina can be used by regulators in other countries to inform various assessments of ecological risk.
Purpose: We present five cases of adult females with major limb amputations, their concerns and preferences for services across the life span. Design: A convenience sample of five veteran and nonveteran women aged 19-58 with major limb amputations participating in a regional VA Prosthetics Conference in 2010 took part in a panel interview. Findings: The concerns identified by these women as high priorities included independence and participation in a full range of life activities, limitations in access, patient decision-making and body image concerns, and preferences for selected services. Maximizing function and quality of life for women amputees requires identifying patient preferences for rehabilitation and prosthetic services. Lessons learned could inform development of clinic-based rehabilitation care, prosthetic services, and studies of women with major limb amputations. Conclusions: As the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, the number of women veterans seeking rehabilitation and prosthetic services will increase. With this information, rehabilitation and prosthetic service providers and organizations will be uniquely positioned to provide prevention and treatment of amputations for this growing population of women veterans in national care delivery systems and in communities. Clinical Relevance: An open-ended facilitated discussion among a panel of women with major limb amputations provided insights for providers and organizations with respect to needs, concerns, and preferences for rehabilitation and prosthetic services. Background and Significance
Purpose: To present population data on standardized measures of dexterity, activity performance, disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and community integration for persons with upper limb amputation (ULA), compare outcomes to normative values, and examine differences by prosthesis type and laterality (unilateral vs. bilateral amputation). Materials and methods: Multi-site, cross-sectional design, with in-person evaluations, functional performance, and self-report measures. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed by amputation level and prosthesis type, data were compared for unilateral and bilateral amputation. Results: One hundred and twenty-seven individuals participated; mean age 57 years, 59% percent bodypowered prostheses users. All measures of dexterity differed (p < 0.05) by amputation level and by laterality. All measures of activity differed by amputation level with the best scores in transradial (TR) amputation groups. Comparisons of body-powered users with TR amputation found that dexterity was better for those with bilateral compared to unilateral amputation. Conclusions: Dexterity is markedly impaired in persons with ULA. Individuals with more proximal ULA levels are most impacted. HRQoL and community participation are less impacted and more equivalent to unimpaired persons. Further research is needed to examine differences by terminal device type and determine how best to match persons with ULA to the optimal prosthesis type and componentry, based on individual characteristics. ä IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION This study provides population-based, comparative data on dexterity, activity performance, disability, quality of life, and independence in upper limb prosthesis users. The study provides preliminary analyses comparing the effectiveness of body-powered devices, myoelectric devices with single degree of freedom and multi-degree of freedom terminal devices. The data presented in this study can be used to benchmark outcomes in patients who are upper limb prosthesis users. The data will also be useful to inform comparative evaluations of existing and emerging prosthetic technology.
IntroductionEMG pattern recognition control (EMG-PR) is a promising option for control of upper limb prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). The purposes of this study were to 1) evaluate outcomes of EMG-PR and inertial measurement units (IMU) control of the DEKA Arm as compared to personal prosthesis; and 2) compare outcomes of EMG-PR to IMU control of DEKA Arm.MethodsThis was a quasi-experimental, multi-site study with repeated measures that compared non-randomized groups using two types of controls: EMG-PR and IMUs. Subjects (N = 36) were transradial (TR) and transhumeral (TH) amputees. Outcomes were collected at Baseline (using personal prosthesis), and after in-laboratory training (Part A), and home use (Part B). Data was compared to personal prosthesis, stratified by amputation level and control type. Outcomes were also compared by control type.ResultsThe EMG-PR group had greater prosthesis use after Part A, but worse dexterity, lower satisfaction, and slower activity performance compared to Baseline; the IMU group had slower activity performance. After Part B, the EMG-PR group had less perceived activity difficulty; the IMU group had improved activity performance, improved disability and activity difficulty, but slower performance. No differences were observed for TH group by control type in Part A or B. The TR group using EMG-PR had worse dexterity (Parts A & B), and activity performance (Part A) as compared to IMU users.Discussion/ConclusionFindings suggest that for the TR group that IMUs are a more effective control method for the DEKA Arm as compared to the EMG-PR prototypes employed in this study. Further research is needed to refine the EMG-PR systems for multi-DOF devices. Future studies should include a larger sample of TH amputees.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551420.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.