Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33933105›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2021

Myoelectric prosthesis users and non-disabled individuals wearing a simulated prosthesis exhibit similar compensatory movement strategies.

Heather E Williams, Craig S Chapman, Patrick M Pilarski, Albert H Vette, Jacqueline S Hebert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Osseoperceptive EMG Feedback Improves Grasp Force Control in Myoelectric Prosthetic Hands.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heather E WilliamsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. heather.williams@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8051-3751
Craig S ChapmanFaculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Patrick M PilarskiDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Albert H VetteDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Jacqueline S HebertDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAAlberta Health Services · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch studies on upper limb prosthesis function often rely on the use of simulated myoelectric prostheses (attached to and operated by individuals with intact limbs), primarily to increase participant sample size. However, it is not known if these devices elicit the same movement strategies as myoelectric prostheses (operated by individuals with amputation). The objective of this study was to address the question of whether non-disabled individuals using simulated prostheses employ the same compensatory movements (measured by hand and upper body kinematics) as individuals who use actual myoelectric prostheses.

methodsThe upper limb movements of two participant groups were investigated: (1) twelve non-disabled individuals wearing a simulated prosthesis, and (2) three individuals with transradial amputation using their custom-fitted myoelectric devices. Motion capture was used for data collection while participants performed a standardized functional task. Performance metrics, hand movements, and upper body angular kinematics were calculated. For each participant group, these measures were compared to those from a normative baseline dataset. Each deviation from normative movement behaviour, by either participant group, indicated that compensatory movements were used during task performance.

resultsResults show that participants using either a simulated or actual myoelectric prosthesis exhibited similar deviations from normative behaviour in phase durations, hand velocities, hand trajectories, number of movement units, grip aperture plateaus, and trunk and shoulder ranges of motion.

conclusionsThis study suggests that the use of a simulated prosthetic device in upper limb research offers a reasonable approximation of compensatory movements employed by a low- to moderately-skilled transradial myoelectric prosthesis user.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsAdultAmputation, SurgicalBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansMaleMotor ActivityMovementProsthesis DesignRange of Motion, ArticularUpper ExtremityBypass prosthesisCompensatory movementsMotion captureMyoelectric prosthesisSimulated prosthesisTransradial amputationUpper body kinematics

Identifiers

PMID33933105
PMCPMC8088043
OpenAlexW3117473196

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.