Presenter Type
UNO Undergraduate Student
Major/Field of Study
Biomechanics
Advisor Information
Associate Professor
Location
CEC RM #201/205/209
Presentation Type
Poster
Poster Size
36 by 48 inch
Start Date
22-3-2024 2:30 PM
End Date
22-3-2024 3:45 PM
Abstract
Noninvasive sensory feedback applies vibration or pressure to the residual limb and is thought to improve the functionality of upper limb prostheses. However, the efficacy of this approach has not been sufficiently investigated, particularly regarding actual amputee efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional benefits of noninvasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses through a meta-analysis. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PubMed) were searched up to October 2022 using the following search terms: (prosthesis OR prosthetic) AND (hand OR arm OR forearm OR transradial OR “upper limb” OR “upper extremity) AND (tactile OR haptic OR feedback). The initial search yielded 2,448 studies, these studies were subjected to additional screening to exclude those that used invasive feedback or did not include transradial upper limb prosthesis users. Following the screening, n=32 tests received a full review. After removing studies that did not include Box and Block or equivalent quantifiable tests, did not include testing on amputees, or completely lacked tactile feedback training, n=3 studies were included, with an overall sample size of n=11 subjects. The results show that prostheses with sensory feedback yielded lower block count per minute than those without it (12.90±3.26 vs. 15.96±2.04). However, the difference was not statistically significant (p=.510). While our analysis shows no functional benefits of including noninvasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses, larger-scale prospective controlled studies are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of this approach.
Functional Outcomes of Noninvasive Sensory Feedback in Upper Limb Prostheses: A Meta-Analysis
CEC RM #201/205/209
Noninvasive sensory feedback applies vibration or pressure to the residual limb and is thought to improve the functionality of upper limb prostheses. However, the efficacy of this approach has not been sufficiently investigated, particularly regarding actual amputee efficacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional benefits of noninvasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses through a meta-analysis. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and PubMed) were searched up to October 2022 using the following search terms: (prosthesis OR prosthetic) AND (hand OR arm OR forearm OR transradial OR “upper limb” OR “upper extremity) AND (tactile OR haptic OR feedback). The initial search yielded 2,448 studies, these studies were subjected to additional screening to exclude those that used invasive feedback or did not include transradial upper limb prosthesis users. Following the screening, n=32 tests received a full review. After removing studies that did not include Box and Block or equivalent quantifiable tests, did not include testing on amputees, or completely lacked tactile feedback training, n=3 studies were included, with an overall sample size of n=11 subjects. The results show that prostheses with sensory feedback yielded lower block count per minute than those without it (12.90±3.26 vs. 15.96±2.04). However, the difference was not statistically significant (p=.510). While our analysis shows no functional benefits of including noninvasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses, larger-scale prospective controlled studies are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of this approach.