PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Patient access to body-powered and myoelectric upper limb prostheses in the United States is often restricted by a healthcare system that prioritizes prosthesis prescription based on cost and perceived value. Although this system operates on an underlying assumption that design differences between these prostheses leads to relative advantages and disadvantages of each device, there is limited empirical evidence to support this view.
METHODS: This commentary article will review a series of studies conducted by our research team with the goal of differentiating how prosthesis design might impact user performance on a variety of interrelated domains. Our central hypothesis is that the design and actuation method of body-powered and myoelectric prostheses might affect users\' ability to access sensory feedback and account for device properties when planning movements. Accordingly, other domains that depend on these abilities may also be affected. While our work demonstrated some differences in availability of sensory feedback based on prosthesis design, this did not result in consistent differences in prosthesis embodiment, movement accuracy, movement quality, and overall kinematic patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our findings suggest that performance may not necessarily depend on prosthesis design, allowing users to be successful with either device type depending on the circumstances. Prescription practices should rely more on individual needs and preferences than cost or prosthesis design. However, we acknowledge that there remains a dearth of evidence to inform decision-making and that an expanded research focus in this area will be beneficial.
METHODS: This commentary article will review a series of studies conducted by our research team with the goal of differentiating how prosthesis design might impact user performance on a variety of interrelated domains. Our central hypothesis is that the design and actuation method of body-powered and myoelectric prostheses might affect users\' ability to access sensory feedback and account for device properties when planning movements. Accordingly, other domains that depend on these abilities may also be affected. While our work demonstrated some differences in availability of sensory feedback based on prosthesis design, this did not result in consistent differences in prosthesis embodiment, movement accuracy, movement quality, and overall kinematic patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our findings suggest that performance may not necessarily depend on prosthesis design, allowing users to be successful with either device type depending on the circumstances. Prescription practices should rely more on individual needs and preferences than cost or prosthesis design. However, we acknowledge that there remains a dearth of evidence to inform decision-making and that an expanded research focus in this area will be beneficial.
摘要：
背景：在美国，患者获得身体动力和肌电上肢假体通常受到医疗保健系统的限制，该系统根据成本和感知价值优先考虑假体处方。尽管该系统运行的基本假设是这些假体之间的设计差异导致每个设备的相对优点和缺点，支持这一观点的经验证据有限。
方法：这篇评论文章将回顾我们的研究团队进行的一系列研究，目的是区分假体设计如何影响用户在各种相关领域的表现。我们的中心假设是，身体动力和肌电假体的设计和致动方法可能会影响用户在计划运动时获得感觉反馈并考虑设备属性的能力。因此，依赖于这些能力的其他领域也可能受到影响。虽然我们的工作证明了基于假体设计的感觉反馈的可用性存在一些差异，这并没有导致在假体实施一致的差异，运动精度,运动质量,和整体运动学模式。
结论：总的来说，我们的研究结果表明，性能不一定取决于假体设计，允许用户根据情况使用任一设备类型成功。处方实践应更多地依赖于个人需求和偏好，而不是成本或假体设计。然而,我们承认，仍然缺乏为决策提供信息的证据，在这一领域扩大研究重点将是有益的。
方法：这篇评论文章将回顾我们的研究团队进行的一系列研究，目的是区分假体设计如何影响用户在各种相关领域的表现。我们的中心假设是，身体动力和肌电假体的设计和致动方法可能会影响用户在计划运动时获得感觉反馈并考虑设备属性的能力。因此，依赖于这些能力的其他领域也可能受到影响。虽然我们的工作证明了基于假体设计的感觉反馈的可用性存在一些差异，这并没有导致在假体实施一致的差异，运动精度,运动质量,和整体运动学模式。
结论：总的来说，我们的研究结果表明，性能不一定取决于假体设计，允许用户根据情况使用任一设备类型成功。处方实践应更多地依赖于个人需求和偏好，而不是成本或假体设计。然而,我们承认，仍然缺乏为决策提供信息的证据，在这一领域扩大研究重点将是有益的。
