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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 548 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 548 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 102 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 98 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 75 | 14% |
| Researcher | 41 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 5% |
| Other | 72 | 13% |
| Unknown | 132 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 271 | 49% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 12 | 2% |
| Other | 45 | 8% |
| Unknown | 160 | 29% |
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
#6,830,418
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#168
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,210
of 420,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 822 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 420,442 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.