↓ Skip to main content

Active lower limb prosthetics: a systematic review of design issues and solutions

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
410 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Active lower limb prosthetics: a systematic review of design issues and solutions
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12938-016-0284-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Windrich, Martin Grimmer, Oliver Christ, Stephan Rinderknecht, Philipp Beckerle

Abstract

This paper presents a review on design issues and solutions found in active lower limb prostheses. This review is based on a systematic literature search with a methodical search strategy. The search was carried out across four major technical databases and the retrieved records were screened for their relevance. A total of 21 different active prostheses, including 8 above-knee, 9 below-knee and 4 combined knee-ankle prostheses were identified. While an active prosthesis may help to restore the functional performance of an amputee, the requirements regarding the actuation unit as well as for the control system are high and the development becomes a challenging task. Regarding mechanical design and the actuation unit high force/torque delivery, high efficiency, low size and low weight are conflicting goals. The actuation principle and variable impedance actuators are discussed. The control system is paramount for a "natural functioning" of the prosthesis. The control system has to enable locomotion and should react to the amputee's intent. For this, multi-level control approaches are reviewed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 410 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 410 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 90 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 86 21%
Student > Bachelor 67 16%
Researcher 30 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 56 14%
Unknown 57 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 225 55%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 4%
Sports and Recreations 12 3%
Neuroscience 11 3%
Other 36 9%
Unknown 86 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2021.
All research outputs
#5,316,284
of 17,904,439 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#136
of 715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,556
of 395,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,904,439 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 715 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.