Upper Limbs Orthosis for Disability Support: The Areas of Project Development Between Technology and Design

  • Davide PaciottiEmail author
  • Francesco Pezzuoli
  • Federica Cotechini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 544)


The ISO 9999: 2016 standard synthetically defines the two different types of artificial support necessary to support or replace the functions of a part of the body, they are indicated as devices applied to the body to support neuromusculoskeletal or movement related functions: the orthosis. They are also referred to as devices applied to the body to replace anatomical structures: prosthesis. The scientific scenario in this field is extremely articulated and invests across many sectors and skills, where the relationship and collaboration systems are substantial for the complexity of the objectives to be achieved. The aid entrusted to a technologically sophisticated system, which represents a substantial functional appendix of the body, implies, for the development of innovation, not only a profound knowledge of the medical, engineering and computer aspects, but also ergonomic, formal, communicative and aesthetic. The project, or the projects that are intended to be presented in the present research work, underline, with the presentation of two case studies, the levels of in-depth analysis of the issues related to the role of design and information technology and robotics. In the following sections two cases of research projects carried out in parallel are proposed. The first “Talking Hands”, purely technical and technological, is a completely wearable device for sign language translation. The second “D’Aria” is a glove is aimed at people with rheumatoid arthritis both for the initial stages of the disease (prevention of more serious damage) and for the more advanced phases (a real aid that restores lost grip capacity). Finally, as a research perspective, this article proposes the hybridization of the two case studies. The final objective will therefore be to create an experimental prototype that hybridizes the two characteristics, creating a series of tests on patients affected by these diseases.


Orthesis Design Talking Hands D’Aria Language 


  1. 1.
    Urry J (2000) Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufmann V, Bergman MM, Joye D (2004) Motility: mobility as capital. Int J Urban RegNal Res 28:745–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Urry J (2007) Mobilities. Polity, p 336Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sheller M (2011) Cosmopolitanism and mobilities. In: Nowicka M, Rovisco M (eds) The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 561–589Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aday P (2010) Aerial life: spaces, mobilities affects. Oxford, Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Markula P (2014) The moving body and social change. Cult Stud Crit Methodol 14:483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Newman JI, Giardina MD (2014) Moving biopolitics. Cult Stud Crit Methodol 14(5):419–424. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Metz DH (2000) Mobility of older people and their quality of life. Transp Policy 7(2):149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith J, Borchelt M, Maier H, Jopp D (2002) Health and well–being in the young old and oldest old. J Soc Issues 58:715–732. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mollenkopf H, Kaspar R, Marcellini F, Ruoppila I (2004a) Quality of life in urban and rural areas of five European countries: similarities and differences. Hallym Int J Aging 6:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mollenkopf H, Marcellini F, Ruoppila I, Széman Z, Tacken M, Wahl HW (2004b) Social and behavioural science perspectives on out-of-home mobility in later life: findings from the European project MOBILATE. Eur J Ageing 1(1):45–53Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allen J (2008) Older people and wellbeing. Institute for Public Policy Research, London. Accessed 29 March 2010
  13. 13.
    Wasserman D (2012) Ethics of human enhancement and its relevance to disability rights. Encyclopedia of the life sciencesGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bose D (2014). Defining and analyzing disability in human enhancement. In: Global issues and ethical considerations in human enhancement technologies. IGI Global Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Eilers M, Grüber K, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) (2014) The human enhancement debate and disability. New bodies for a better life. Palgrave MacMillan Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolbring G (2009) What next for the human species? Human performance enhancement, ableism and pluralism. Dev Dialogue 2 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tomas D (1995) Feedback and cybernetics: reimaging the body in the age of the cyborg. Body Soc 1(3–4) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swart L, Watermeyer B (2008) Cyborg anxiety: Oscar pistorius and the boundaries of what it means to be human. J Disabil Soc 23(2)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morrone A (2004) “Materiali e protesi” articolo su rivista Diid n°08/2004 Dpress RomaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pezzuoli1 F, Corona1 D, Corradini1 ML, Cristofaro1 A (2019) Development of a wearable device for sign language translation, School of Science and Technology, Unicam, Via Madonna delle Carceri 9, Camerino, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Paciotti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francesco Pezzuoli
    • 2
  • Federica Cotechini
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Architecture e Design “E. Vittoria”University of CamerinoCamerinoItaly
  2. 2.School of Science and TechnologyUniversity of CamerinoCamerinoItaly

Personalised recommendations