Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36712150›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022

The experience of sensorimotor integration of a lower limb sensory neuroprosthesis: A qualitative case study.

Melissa S Schmitt, John D Wright, Ronald J Triolo, Hamid Charkhkar, Emily L Graczyk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. User-Centered Design of Neuroprosthetics: Advancements and Limitations.CNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Clinical Applications and Future Translation of Somatosensory Neuroprostheses.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Review
  10. Sensory Restoration for Improved Motor Control of Prostheses.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Guest Editorial Special Section on Functional Recovery and Brain Plasticity.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
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.

Melissa S SchmittLouis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States.
John D WrightDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Ronald J TrioloLouis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Hamid CharkhkarLouis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Emily L GraczykLouis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, United States.
Case Western Reserve University · USLouis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Lower limb prosthesis users often struggle to navigate uneven terrain or ambulate in low light conditions where it can be challenging to rely on visual cues for balance and walking. Sensory feedback about foot-floor interactions may allow users to reduce reliance on secondary sensory cues and improve confidence and speed when navigating difficult terrain. Our group has developed a Sensory Neuroprosthesis (SNP) to restore sensation to people with lower limb amputation by pairing electrical stimulation of nerves in the residual limb applied Methods: This qualitative case study reports on the experiences of a 68-year-old with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation who autonomously used the SNP at home for 31 weeks. Interview data collected throughout the study period was analyzed using a grounded theory approach with constant comparative methods to understand his experience with this novel technology and its impacts on his daily life. Results: A conceptual model was developed that explained the experience of integrating SNP-provided sensory feedback into his body and motor plans. The model described the requirements of integration, which were a combination of a low level of mental focus and low stimulation levels. While higher levels of stimulation and focus could result in distinct sensory percepts and various phantom limb experiences, optimal integration was associated with SNP-evoked sensation that was not readily perceivable. Successful sensorimotor integration of the SNP resulted in improvements to locomotion, a return to a more normal state, an enhancement of perceived prosthesis utility, and a positive outlook on the experience. Discussion: These outcomes emerged over the course of the nearly 8 month study, suggesting that findings from long-term home studies of SNPs may differ from those of short-term in-laboratory tests. Our findings on the experience of sensorimotor integration of the SNP have implications for the optimal training of SNP users and the future deployment of clinical SNP systems for long-term home use.

Indexed as

amputation rehabilitationhome uselower limb prosthesisphantom limbprosthesis embodimentsensorimotor learningsensory feedbacksensory neuroprosthesis

Identifiers

PMID36712150
PMCPMC9874950
OpenAlexW4315498102

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.