Kinematic analysis of motor learning in upper limb body-powered bypass prosthesis training

Kinematic analysis of impairments and compensatory motor behavior during prosthetic grasping in below-elbow amputees

After a major upper limb amputation, the use of myoelectric prosthesis as assistive devices is possible. However, these prostheses remain quite difficult to control for grasping and manipulation of daily life objects. The aim of the present observational case study is to document the kinematics of grasping in a group of 10 below-elbow amputated patients fitted with a myoelectric prosthesis in order to describe and better understand their compensatory strategies. They performed a grasping to lift task toward 3 objects (a mug, a cylinder and a cone) placed at two distances within the reaching area in front of the patients. The kinematics of the trunk and upper-limb on the non-amputated and prosthetic sides were recorded with 3 electromagnetic Polhemus sensors placed on the hand, the forearm (or the corresponding site on the prosthesis) and the ipsilateral acromion. The 3D position of the elbow joint and the shoulder and elbow angles were calculated thanks to a preliminary calibration of the sensor position. We examined first the effect of side, distance and objects with non-parametric statistics. Prosthetic grasping was characterized by severe temporo-spatial impairments consistent with previous clinical or kinematic observations. The grasping phase was prolonged and the reaching and grasping components uncoupled. The 3D hand displacement was symmetrical in average, but with some differences according to the objects. Compensatory strategies involved the trunk and the proximal part of the upper-limb, as shown by a greater 3D displacement of the elbow for close target and a greater forward displacement of the acromion, particularly for far targets. The hand orientation at the time of grasping showed marked side differences with a more frontal azimuth, and a more "thumb-up" roll. The variation of hand orientation with the object on the prosthetic side, suggested that the lack of finger and wrist mobility imposed some adaptation of hand pose relative to the object. The detailed kinematic analysis allows more insight into the mechanisms of the compensatory strategies that could be due to both increased distal or proximal kinematic constraints. A better knowledge of those compensatory strategies is important for the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders and the development of innovative prosthetics.

State of the art of prosthesis simulators for the upper limb: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Research into prosthesis training and design puts a burden on the small population of people with upper-limb absence who can participate in these studies. One solution is to use a prosthetic hand simulator, which allows for attaching a hand prosthesis to an intact limb. However, whether the results of prosthesis simulator studies can be translated to people with upper-limb absence using a hand prosthesis is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on prosthetic hand simulators, provide an overview of current designs, and highlight the differences and similarities between prosthesis simulators and traditional prostheses.

METHODS

A Boolean combination of keywords was used to search 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Relevant articles in English were selected.

RESULTS

In total, 52 papers were included in the review, and an overview of the state of the art was presented. We identified the key differences between prosthesis simulators and traditional prostheses as the position of the terminal device and the available degrees of freedom of the arm and (prosthetic) wrist.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper provides an overview of prosthesis simulator designs over the past 27 years and an overview of the similarities and differences between prosthesis simulators and prostheses. The literature does not provide enough evidence to establish whether the results obtained from simulator studies could be translated to prostheses. A recommendation for future simulator design is to constrain pro- and supination of the forearm of anatomically intact participants and add a prosthetic wrist that can pro- and supinate. Additional research is required to find the ideal terminal device position for a prosthesis simulator with respect to the person's hand.

Comparison of Motion Analysis Systems in Tracking Upper Body Movement of Myoelectric Bypass Prosthesis Users

Current literature lacks a comparative analysis of different motion capture systems for tracking upper limb (UL) movement as individuals perform standard tasks. To better understand the performance of various motion capture systems in quantifying UL movement in the prosthesis user population, this study compares joint angles derived from three systems that vary in cost and motion capture mechanisms: a marker-based system (Vicon), an inertial measurement unit system (Xsens), and a markerless system (Kinect). Ten healthy participants (5F/5M; 29.6 ± 7.1 years) were trained with a TouchBionic i-Limb Ultra myoelectric terminal device mounted on a bypass prosthetic device. Participants were simultaneously recorded with all systems as they performed standardized tasks. Root mean square error and bias values for degrees of freedom in the right elbow, shoulder, neck, and torso were calculated. The IMU system yielded more accurate kinematics for shoulder, neck, and torso angles while the markerless system performed better for the elbow angles. By evaluating the ability of each system to capture kinematic changes of simulated upper limb prosthesis users during a variety of standardized tasks, this study provides insight into the advantages and limitations of using different motion capture technologies for upper limb functional assessment.

Myoelectric prosthesis users and non-disabled individuals wearing a simulated prosthesis exhibit similar compensatory movement strategies

Background

Research studies on upper limb prosthesis function often rely on the use of simulated myoelectric prostheses (attached to and operated by individuals with intact limbs), primarily to increase participant sample size. However, it is not known if these devices elicit the same movement strategies as myoelectric prostheses (operated by individuals with amputation). The objective of this study was to address the question of whether non-disabled individuals using simulated prostheses employ the same compensatory movements (measured by hand and upper body kinematics) as individuals who use actual myoelectric prostheses.

Methods

The upper limb movements of two participant groups were investigated: (1) twelve non-disabled individuals wearing a simulated prosthesis, and (2) three individuals with transradial amputation using their custom-fitted myoelectric devices. Motion capture was used for data collection while participants performed a standardized functional task. Performance metrics, hand movements, and upper body angular kinematics were calculated. For each participant group, these measures were compared to those from a normative baseline dataset. Each deviation from normative movement behaviour, by either participant group, indicated that compensatory movements were used during task performance.

Results

Results show that participants using either a simulated or actual myoelectric prosthesis exhibited similar deviations from normative behaviour in phase durations, hand velocities, hand trajectories, number of movement units, grip aperture plateaus, and trunk and shoulder ranges of motion.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the use of a simulated prosthetic device in upper limb research offers a reasonable approximation of compensatory movements employed by a low- to moderately-skilled transradial myoelectric prosthesis user.

Application of machine learning to the identification of joint degrees of freedom involved in abnormal movement during upper limb prosthesis use

To evaluate movement quality of upper limb (UL) prosthesis users, performance-based outcome measures have been developed that examine the normalcy of movement as compared to a person with a sound, intact hand. However, the broad definition of “normal movement” and the subjective nature of scoring can make it difficult to know which areas of the body to evaluate, and the expected magnitude of deviation from normative movement. To provide a more robust approach to characterizing movement differences, the goals of this work are to identify degrees of freedom (DOFs) that will inform abnormal movement for several tasks using unsupervised machine learning (clustering methods) and elucidate the variations in movement approach across two upper-limb prosthesis devices with varying DOFs as compared to healthy controls. 24 participants with no UL disability or impairment were recruited for this study and trained on the use of a body-powered bypass (n = 6) or the DEKA limb bypass (n = 6) prosthetic devices or included as normative controls. 3D motion capture data were collected from all participants as they performed the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JHFT) and targeted Box and Blocks Test (tBBT). Range of Motion, peak angle, angular path length, mean angle, peak angular velocity, and number of zero crossings were calculated from joint angle data for the right/left elbows, right/left shoulders, torso, and neck and fed into a K-means clustering algorithm. Results show right shoulder and torso DOFs to be most informative in distinguishing between bypass user and norm group movement. The JHFT page turning task and the seated tBBT elicit movements from bypass users that are most distinctive from the norm group. Results can be used to inform the development of movement quality scoring methodology for UL performance-based outcome measures. Identifying tasks across two different devices with known variations in movement can inform the best tasks to perform in a rehabilitation setting that challenge the prosthesis user’s ability to achieve normative movement.