Advertisement

The Effect of Training with a Prosthetic Hand Simulator in Adult Non-amputees: A Controlled Pilot Study

  • Stijn VerwulgenEmail author
  • Erik Haring
  • Kristof Vaes
  • Anouck Mees
  • Bram Raeymaekers
  • Steven Truijen
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)

Abstract

The uprising of versatile wearable technology allows for the development of assistive aids with increased functionality. With this improved functionality, often complexity of use also increases. In particular, wearable multi-channel emg sensors combined with versatile programmable output and emg pattern classifiers, allows to steer prostheses with mechanical functionality in multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). As it is essential for arm amputees to learn how to use newly multiple DOF prosthesis with improved functionality, there is a growing need for a substantiated training program. The aim of this controlled pilot study was to investigate the effect of a prosthetic training session on the functionality of adult non-amputees wearing a prosthetic hand simulator. The prosthetic hand simulator was dedicatedly developed to that end. Ten participants were recruited from the University of Antwerp, aged 18–25 years. All participants were able-bodied and right-handed adults, with normal or corrected-to-normal vision, no neurological or upper extremity musculoskeletal problems, and no earlier experience with a prosthetic simulator. The SHAP test was performed with a prosthetic simulator to obtain an impression of the functionality. Mann-Whitney U test confirmed the comparability of scores of the control group (N = 5) and intervention group (N = 5) at baseline (p = 0.530). Further, a statistically significant difference between first and last test-sessions could be identified in both groups (both p = 0.042). In addition, a trend (p = 0.056) in difference in improvement could be observed in favor of the intervention group. Results emphasize the importance of learning a correct and functional employment of multiple DOF artificial hand prosthesis and thus improving functionality in daily use.

Keywords

Prosthetic articulator Multiple DOF Activities of daily life Shap-test 

References

  1. 1.
    Segil, J.L., Huddle, S.A.: Functional assessment of a myoelectric postural controller and multi-functional prosthetic hand by persons with trans-radial limb loss. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25, 618–627 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Light, C.M., Chappell, P.H., Kyberd, P.J.: Establishing a standardized clinical assessment tool of pathologic and prosthetic hand function: normative data, reliability, and validity. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 83, 776–783 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalley, S.A., Bennett, D.A., Goldfarb, M.: Preliminary functional assessment of a multigrasp myoelectric prosthesis. In: 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 4172–4175 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouwsema, H., Van der Sluis, C.K., Bongers, R.M.: Movement characteristics of upper extremity prostheses during basic goal-directed tasks. Clin. Biomech. 25, 523–529 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Segil, J.L., Controzzi, M.: Comparative study of state-of-the-art myoelectric controllers for multigrasp prosthetic hands. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 51, 1439 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hill, W., Kyberd, P., Hermansson, L.N., Hubbard, S., Stavdahl, Ø., Swanson, S.: Upper limb prosthetic outcome measures (ULPOM): a working group and their findings. JPO: J. Prosthet. Orthot. 21, P69–P82 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Metcalf, C.D., Woodward, H., Wright, V., Chappell, P.H., Burridge, J.H., Yule, V.T.: Changes in hand function with age and normative unimpaired scores when measured with the Southampton hand assessment procedure. Br. J. Hand Ther. 13, 79–83 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burgerhof, J.G., Vasluian, E., Dijkstra, P.U., Bongers, R.M., van der Sluis, C.K.: The Southampton hand assessment procedure revisited: a transparent linear scoring system, applied to data of experienced prosthetic users. J. Hand Ther. 30, 49–57 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vasluian, E., Bongers, R.M., Reinders-Messelink, H.A., Burgerhof, J.G., Dijkstra, P.U., van der Sluis, C.K.: Learning effects of repetitive administration of the Southampton hand assessment procedure in novice prosthetic users. J. Rehabil. Med. 46, 788–797 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kyberd, P.J.: The influence of control format and hand design in single axis myoelectric hands: assessment of functionality of prosthetic hands using the Southampton hand assessment procedure. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 35, 285–293 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vasluian, E., Bongers, R.M., Reinders-Messelink, H.A., Dijkstra, P.U., van der Sluis, C.K.: Preliminary study of the Southampton hand assessment procedure for children and its reliability. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 15, 199 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Metcalf, C.: Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (2018). http://www.shap.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
  13. 13.
    Wright, V.: Prosthetic outcome measures for use with upper limb amputees: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, 1970 to 2009. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 21, 3–63 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bouwsema, H., van der Sluis, C.K., Bongers, R.M.: Changes in performance over time while learning to use a myoelectric prosthesis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 11, 16 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hubbard, I.J., Parsons, M.W., Neilson, C., Carey, L.M.: Task-specific training: evidence for and translation to clinical practice. Occup. Ther. Int. 16, 175–189 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stijn Verwulgen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Erik Haring
    • 1
  • Kristof Vaes
    • 1
  • Anouck Mees
    • 2
  • Bram Raeymaekers
    • 2
  • Steven Truijen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department Product Development, Faculty of Design ScienceUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Medicine and Health ScienceUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations