ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2025
Development and assessment of vibrotactile feedback from the embedded sensors of a microprocessor-controlled knee prosthesis.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial sensory feedback can improve function and user experience in lower-limb prosthesis users. Non-invasive methods like vibrotactile stimulation are clinically convenient, as they require no surgery. Most studies evaluate single feedback approaches, typically under controlled conditions promoting reliance on feedback. This study presents a flexible framework to compare multiple feedback approaches using microprocessor-controlled prosthesis (MP) sensors during daily-life activities.
methodsTen able-bodied participants and one prosthesis user with transfemoral amputation (TFA) tested two feedback locations (waist "Belt", or thigh/residual limb "Socket") to investigate tradeoffs between perception quality and compactness, using Sensation Thresholds (ST), Weber Fraction (WF), Spatial Discrimination (SD), and comfort. TFA then completed an out-of-the-lab walking session with the Socket configuration to evaluate the impact of four feedback approaches on spatiotemporal parameters and kinematics symmetries, cognitive load, and user experience during overground walking and stair climbing. Three approaches used embedded MP sensors, conveying (1) knee angle, (2) hybrid (gait phases overground, knee angle during stairs), and (3) damping (velocity-dependent resistance to flexion/extension) feedback. The fourth method used a sensorized insole, providing (4) force feedback (plantar pressure under the prosthetic foot).
resultsAble-bodied participants perceived the Belt configuration better-lower ST (29.09 ± 0.60% vs. 33.19 ± 0.60%, p < 0.001), lower WF (14.49 ± 7.02% vs. 17.98 ± 5.72%, p < 0.01), better SD at higher task difficulty (four choices: 99.3 ± 2.0% vs. 91.5 ± 2.0%, p < 0.01; eight choices: 96.0 ± 2.0% vs. 78.1 ± 2.0%, p < 0.001)-and found it also more comfortable (9.17 ± 0.3 vs. 8.15 ± 0.3; p < 0.05). Similar trends were observed in TFA. Feedback did not impact the kinematics symmetry but slightly affected stance time/percentage symmetry, with force feedback demonstrating the most consistent benefits. These suggest that incidental feedback provided intrinsically by the prosthesis (e.g., motion, sound, socket pressure, vibration) may already support gait in experienced users. Nevertheless, TFA preferred having feedback, especially force and damping, which reduced cognitive load.
conclusionEmbedded MP sensors enable flexible, compact feedback solutions, combining internal signals (e.g., damping feedback) with external sensing (e.g., omnidirectional force feedback). Belt-mounted vibromotors are effective for testing complex encoding schemes. Feedback should be co-developed with users, balancing objective performance and subjective experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.