↓ Skip to main content

Surveying the interest of individuals with upper limb loss in novel prosthetic control techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
306 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
Surveying the interest of individuals with upper limb loss in novel prosthetic control techniques
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12984-015-0044-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susannah M. Engdahl, Breanne P. Christie, Brian Kelly, Alicia Davis, Cynthia A. Chestek, Deanna H. Gates

Abstract

Novel techniques for the control of upper limb prostheses may allow users to operate more complex prostheses than those that are currently available. Because many of these techniques are surgically invasive, it is important to understand whether individuals with upper limb loss would accept the associated risks in order to use a prosthesis. An online survey of individuals with upper limb loss was conducted. Participants read descriptions of four prosthetic control techniques. One technique was noninvasive (myoelectric) and three were invasive (targeted muscle reinnervation, peripheral nerve interfaces, cortical interfaces). Participants rated how likely they were to try each technique if it offered each of six different functional features. They also rated their general interest in each of the six features. A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance with Greenhouse-Geisser corrections was used to examine the effect of the technique type and feature on participants' interest in each technique. Responses from 104 individuals were analyzed. Many participants were interested in trying the techniques - 83 % responded positively toward myoelectric control, 63 % toward targeted muscle reinnervation, 68 % toward peripheral nerve interfaces, and 39 % toward cortical interfaces. Common concerns about myoelectric control were weight, cost, durability, and difficulty of use, while the most common concern about the invasive techniques was surgical risk. Participants expressed greatest interest in basic prosthesis features (e.g., opening and closing the hand slowly), as opposed to advanced features like fine motor control and touch sensation. The results of these investigations may be used to inform the development of future prosthetic technologies that are appealing to individuals with upper limb loss.

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 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 299 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 20%
Student > Master 56 18%
Researcher 42 14%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Student > Postgraduate 12 4%
Other 40 13%
Unknown 58 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 142 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 11%
Neuroscience 13 4%
Computer Science 11 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 70 23%
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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,280,315
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,136
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,817
of 264,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 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 264,753 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 17 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.