Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27716254›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2016

Learning to use a body-powered prosthesis: changes in functionality and kinematics.

Laura H B Huinink, Hanneke Bouwsema, Dick H Plettenburg, Corry K van der Sluis, Raoul M Bongers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparison of DEKA Arm and Body-Powered Upper Limb Prosthesis Joint Kinematics.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Evaluation of Performance-Based Outcome Measures for the Upper Limb: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2018
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Laura H B HuininkCenter for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, UMCG sector F, FA 23, PO Box 196, Groningen, NL-9700 AD, The Netherlands.
Hanneke BouwsemaAdelante Rehabilitation Centre, Centre of Expertise in Rehabilitation and Audiology, Hoensbroek, The Netherlands.
Dick H PlettenburgDepartment of BioMechanical Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Corry K van der SluisCenter for Rehabilitation, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Raoul M BongersCenter for Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, UMCG sector F, FA 23, PO Box 196, Groningen, NL-9700 AD, The Netherlands. r.m.bongers@umcg.nl.
University of Groningen · NLDelft University of Technology · NLMaastricht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about action-perception learning processes underlying prosthetic skills in body-powered prosthesis users. Body-powered prostheses are controlled through a harness connected by a cable that might provide for limited proprioceptive feedback. This study aims to test transfer of training basic tasks to functional tasks and to describe the changes over time in kinematics of basic tasks of novice body-powered prosthesis users.

methodsThirty able-bodied participants and 17 controls participated in the study, using a body-powered prosthetic simulator. Participants in the training group were divided over four groups and practiced during a 2-week-period either direct grasping, indirect grasping, fixation, or a combination of these tasks. Deformable objects with different compliances had to be manipulated while kinematic variables and grip force control were assessed. Functional performance was measured with the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) prior to and after the training sessions, and after 2 weeks and 3 months retention. The control group only performed the SHAP tests.

resultsAll four training groups and the control group improved on the SHAP, also after a period of non-use. Type of training had a small but significant influence on the improvements of the SHAP score. On a kinematic level movement times decreased and hook closing velocities increased over time. The indirect grasping group showed significantly shorter plateau times than the other training groups. Grip force control only improved a little over training.

conclusionsTraining action-perception couplings of body-powered prosthesis in basic tasks transferred to functional tasks and this lasted after a period of non-use. During training movement times decreased and the indirect grasping group showed advantages. It is advisable to start body-powered training with indirect grasping tasks but also to practice hook-object orientations.

Indexed as

LearningProstheses and ImplantsArtificial LimbsBiomechanical PhenomenaFeedback, SensoryFemaleHand StrengthHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleYoung AdultAction-perceptionAmputeeBody-powered prosthetic hookFunctional performanceGrip force controlKinematicsProprioceptive feedbackProsthetic trainingUpper-limb prosthesis

Identifiers

PMID27716254
PMCPMC5054596
OpenAlexW2528666802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.