Abstract
AbstractProprioception plays a key role in moving our body dexterously and effortlessly. Nevertheless, the majority of investigations evaluating the benefits of providing supplemental feedback to prosthetics users focus on delivering touch restitution. These studies evaluate the influence of touch sensation in an attempt to improve the controllability of current robotic devices. Contrarily, investigations evaluating the capabilities of proprioceptive supplemental feedback have yet to be comprehensively analyzed to the same extent, marking a major gap in knowledge within the current research climate. The non-invasive strategies employed so far to restitute proprioception are reviewed in this work. In the absence of a clearly superior strategy, approaches employing vibrotactile, electrotactile and skin-stretch stimulation achieved better and more consistent results, considering both kinesthetic and grip force information, compared with other strategies or any incidental feedback. Although emulating the richness of the physiological sensory return through artificial feedback is the primary hurdle, measuring its effects to eventually support the integration of cumbersome and energy intensive hardware into commercial prosthetic devices could represent an even greater challenge. Thus, we analyze the strengths and limitations of previous studies and discuss the possible benefits of coupling objective measures, like neurophysiological parameters, as well as measures of prosthesis embodiment and cognitive load with behavioral measures of performance. Such insights aim to provide additional and collateral outcomes to be considered in the experimental design of future investigations of proprioception restitution that could, in the end, allow researchers to gain a more detailed understanding of possibly similar behavioral results and, thus, support one strategy over another.
Funder
European Research Council
Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione Contro Gli Infortuni sul Lavoro
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Rehabilitation
Reference159 articles.
1. McDonald CL, Westcott-McCoy S, Weaver MR, Haagsma J, Kartin D. Global prevalence of traumatic non-fatal limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020;4:0309364620972258.
2. Behrendt CA, Sigvant B, Szeberin Z, Beiles B, Eldrup N, Thomson IA, et al. International variations in amputation practice: a VASCUNET report. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56(3):391–9.
3. Atkins SE, Winterton RIS, Kay SP. (v) Upper limb amputations: where, when and how to replant. Curr Orthop. 2008;22(1):31–41.
4. Fitzgibbons P, Medvedev G. Functional and clinical outcomes of upper extremity amputation. JAAOS J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015;23(12):751–60.
5. Freeland AE, Psonak R. Traumatic below-elbow amputations. Orthopedics. 2007;30(2):120–6.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献