IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0220899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Users’ and therapists’ perceptions of myoelectric multi-function upper limb prostheses with conventional and pattern recognition control

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas W Franzke
  • Morten B Kristoffersen
  • Raoul M Bongers
  • Alessio Murgia
  • Barbara Pobatschnig
  • Fabian Unglaube
  • Corry K van der Sluis

Abstract

Objective: To describe users’ and therapists’ opinions on multi-function myoelectric upper limb prostheses with conventional control and pattern recognition control. Design: Qualitative interview study. Settings: Two rehabilitation institutions in the Netherlands and one in Austria. Subjects: The study cohort consisted of 15 prosthesis users (13 males, mean age: 43.7 years, average experience with multi-function prosthesis: 3.15 years) and seven therapists (one male, mean age: 44.1 years, average experience with multi-function prostheses: 6.6 years). Four of these users and one therapist had experience with pattern recognition control. Method: This study consisted of semi-structured interviews. The participants were interviewed at their rehabilitation centres or at home by telephone. The thematic framework approach was used for analysis. Results: The themes emerging from prosthesis users and therapists were largely congruent and resulted in one thematic framework with three main themes: control, prosthesis, and activities. The participants mostly addressed (dis-) satisfaction with the control type and the prosthesis itself and described the way they used their prostheses in daily tasks. Conclusion: Prosthesis users and therapists described multi-function upper limb prostheses as more functional devices than conventional one-degree-of-freedom prostheses. Nonetheless, the prostheses were seldom used to actively grasp and manipulate objects. Moreover, the participants clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the mechanical robustness of the devices and with the process of switching prosthesis function under conventional control. Pattern recognition was appreciated as an intuitive control that facilitated fast switching between prosthesis functions, but was reported to be too unreliable for daily use and require extensive training.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas W Franzke & Morten B Kristoffersen & Raoul M Bongers & Alessio Murgia & Barbara Pobatschnig & Fabian Unglaube & Corry K van der Sluis, 2019. "Users’ and therapists’ perceptions of myoelectric multi-function upper limb prostheses with conventional and pattern recognition control," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220899
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220899
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220899&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0220899?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.