↓ Skip to main content

Non-weight-bearing neural control of a powered transfemoral prosthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 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
Non-weight-bearing neural control of a powered transfemoral prosthesis
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-10-62
Pubmed ID
Authors

Levi J Hargrove, Ann M Simon, Robert Lipschutz, Suzanne B Finucane, Todd A Kuiken

Abstract

Lower limb prostheses have traditionally been mechanically passive devices without electronic control systems. Microprocessor-controlled passive and powered devices have recently received much interest from the clinical and research communities. The control systems for these devices typically use finite-state controllers to interpret data measured from mechanical sensors embedded within the prosthesis. In this paper we investigated a control system that relied on information extracted from myoelectric signals to control a lower limb prosthesis while amputee patients were seated. Sagittal plane motions of the knee and ankle can be accurately (>90%) recognized and controlled in both a virtual environment and on an actuated transfemoral prosthesis using only myoelectric signals measured from nine residual thigh muscles. Patients also demonstrated accurate (~90%) control of both the femoral and tibial rotation degrees of freedom within the virtual environment. A channel subset investigation was completed and the results showed that only five residual thigh muscles are required to achieve accurate control. This research is the first step in our long-term goal of implementing myoelectric control of lower limb prostheses during both weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing activities for individuals with transfemoral amputation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 178 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 24%
Student > Master 35 19%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 22 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 99 55%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 35 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 June 2013.
All research outputs
#20,195,024
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,137
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,332
of 196,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 196,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.