Advertisement

The Design of the Paediatric Prosthesis: Assessment of Stigma-Inducing Factors in Primary School Children, Using a Questionnaire

  • Steven TruijenEmail author
  • Wim Saeys
  • Erik Haring
  • Hilde Feys
  • Emilie Meyvis
  • Anouche Van den Eynde
  • Kristof Vaes
  • Eric van Breda
  • Evi Schaerlaken
  • Stijn VerwulgenEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)

Abstract

This study is the first to examine prosthesis design and appearance in healthy children towards prosthesis for children using a questionnaire. 119 typically developing children between the age of seven and twelve years were included. Their reactions were evoked by priming them to several types of assistive devices. Most of the participants clearly preferred the electrical prosthesis, proving the uncanny valley is applicable to primary school children. The life-like prosthesis was chosen three times more in the girl group, in contrast with the boys who rather prefer the robotic prosthesis and the self-drafted prosthesis. As age increased, a shift was observed from appearance to functionality. Results can be used to minimize stigma and enhance compliance of assistive aids in children with an upper limb reduction.

Keywords

Children Design Appearance Prosthesis Artificial device Assistive device Stigma Uncanny valley 

References

  1. 1.
    Zuniga, J., Katsavelis, D., Peck, J., Stollberg, J., Petrykowski, M., Carson, A., Fernandez, C.: Cyborg beast: a low-cost 3D-printed prosthetic hand for children with upper-limb differences. BMC Res. Notes 8, 10 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crandall, R.C., Tomhave, W.: Pediatric unilateral below-elbow amputees: retrospective analysis of 34 patients given multiple prosthetic options. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 22(3), 380–383 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hussain, S.: Toes that look like toes: Cambodian children’s perspectives on prosthetic legs. Qual. Health Res. 21(10), 1427–1440 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jensen, J.S., Nilsen, R., Thanh, N.H., Saldana, A., Hartz, C.: Clinical field testing of polyurethane feet for trans-tibial amputees in tropical low-income countries. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 30(2), 182–194 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gielen, M.: Exploring the child’s mind – contextmapping research with children. Digit. Creat. 19(3), 174–184 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bidiss, E., Beaton, D., Chau, T.: Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2(6), 346–357 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cummings, D.R.: Pediatric prosthetics: an update. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N Am. 17(1), 15–21 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cairns, N., Murray, K., Corney, J., McFadyen, A.: Satisfaction with cosmesis and priorities for cosmesis design reported by lower limb amputees in the United Kingdom: instrument development and results. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 38(6), 467–473 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zlotolow, D.A., Kozin, S.H.: Advances in upper extremity prosthetics. Hand Clin. 28(4), 587–593 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bidiss, E., Chau, T.: Upper-limb prosthetics: critical factors in device abandonment. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 86(12), 977–987 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cabibihan, J.J., Joshi, D., Srinivasa, Y.M., Chan, M.A., Muruganatham, A.: Illusory sense of human touch from a warm and soft artificial hand. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 23(3), 517–527 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corti, J.: Prosthesis for upper extremity congenital deformities. Chir Main 27, S148–S156 (2008). [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 18842443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hilhorst, M.: ‘Prosthetic fit’: on personal identity and the value of bodily difference. Med. Health Care Philos. 7(3), 303–310 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Postema, K., van der Donk, V., van Limbeek, J., Rijken, R.A., Poelma, M.J.: Prosthesis rejection in children with a unilateral congenital arm defect. Clin. Rehabil. 13(3), 243–249 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pruitt, S.D., Varni, J.W., Seid, M., Setoguchi, Y.: Prosthesis satisfaction outcome measurement in pediatric limb deficiency. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 78(7), 750–754 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poliakoff, E., Beach, N., Best, R., Howard, T., Gowen, E.: Can looking at a hand make your skin crawl? Peering into the uncanny valley for hands. Perception 42(9), 998–1000 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mori, M.: The uncanny valley. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 19(2), 98–100 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poliakoff, E., O’Kane, S., Carefoot, O., Kyberd, P., Gowen, E.: Investigating the uncanny valley for prosthetic hands. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 42(1), 21–27 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kätsyri, J., Fôrger, K., Mäkäräinen, M., Takala, T.: A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness. Front. Psychol. 6, 390 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Landtsheer, G.: The influence of Social Media on consumer decision making process. Kuleuven (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Major, B., O’Brien, L.T.: The social psychology of stigma. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 56, 393–421 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Link, B.G., Phelan, J.C.: Conceptualizing stigma. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27, 363–385 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fiske, S., Cuddy, A., Glick, P.: Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Cogn. Sci. 11(2), 77–83 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vaterlaus, J.M., Pattern, E., Roche, C., Young, J.A.: #Gettinghealthy: the perceived influence of social media on young adult health behaviors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 45, 151–157 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vaes, K.: Product stigmaticity: understanding, measuring and managing product-related stigma. Delft University of Technology – Antwerp University (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., Buchner, A.: G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.G.: Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 1149–1160 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gielen, M.: Mapping children’s experiences: adapting contextmapping tools to child participants. Nordes 1(5) (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Visser, F.S., Stappers, P., van der Lugt, R., Sanders, E.: Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign 1(2), 119–149 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Truijen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wim Saeys
    • 1
  • Erik Haring
    • 3
  • Hilde Feys
    • 2
  • Emilie Meyvis
    • 2
  • Anouche Van den Eynde
    • 2
  • Kristof Vaes
    • 3
  • Eric van Breda
    • 1
  • Evi Schaerlaken
    • 1
  • Stijn Verwulgen
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department REVAKIUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.Rehabilitation SciencesUniversity of AntwerpLouvainBelgium
  3. 3.Department Product DevelopmentUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations