Scientific validation of two commercial pressure sensor systems for prosthetic socket fit

References

• , American National Standard C85.1–1963. Terminology for Automatic Control.
   Google Scholar
• Bader DL, Gigg SL, Polliack AA. The importance of pressure and time in determining soft tissue status. Proceedings of the Second World War Congress of Biomechanics. AmsterdamThe Netherlands 1994; 21
   Google Scholar
• Buis AWP, Convery P. Calibration problems encountered while monitoring stump/socket interface pressures with force sensing resistors: techniques adopted to minimise inaccuracies. Prosthet Orthot Int 1997; 21: 179–182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS, Anine W, Welling RL. A method for the investigation of the effects of outside modifications in therapeutic footwear. Foot Ankle Int 1996; 17: 706–708
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conti SF, Martin RL, Chaytor ER, Hughes C, Luttrell L. Plantar pressure measurements during ambulation in weightbearing conventional short leg casts and total contact casts. Foot Ankle Int 1996; 17: 464–469
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Engsberg JR, Springer MJN, Harder JA. Quantifying interface pressures in below‐knee‐amputee sockets. J Assoc Child Prosthet Orthot Clin 1992; 27((3))81–88
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson‐Pell MW, Cardi MD. Prototype development and comparative evaluation of wheelchair pressure mapping system. Assist Technol 1993; 5: 78–91
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henderson JL, Price SH, Brandstain ME, Mandac BR. Efficacy of three measures to relieve pressure in seated persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75: 535–539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houston VL, Mason CP, LaBlanc KP, Beattie AC, Garbarini MA, Lorenze EJ. Preliminary results with the DVA‐Tekscan BK prosthetics socket: residual limb stress measurement system. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthotist and Prosthetist. Nashville, TN 1994; 8–9
   Google Scholar
• Koo TKK, Arthur FTM, Lee YL. Evaluation of an active seating system for pressure relief. Assist Technol 7 1995; 119–128
   Google Scholar
• Krouskop TA, Brown J, Goode B, Winningham D. Interface pressures in above‐knee sockets. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1987; 68: 713–714
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Levy SL, Allende MF, Barnes GH. Skin problems of the leg amputee. Arch Dermatol 1962; 85: 105–121
   Google Scholar
• Lipták B. Instrument Engineers’. Handbook, B Lipták. Chilton Book Co., Pennsylvania 1982
   Google Scholar
• Martin RL, Conti SF. Plantar pressure analysis of diabetic rockerbottom deformity in total contact casts. Foot Ankle Int 1996; 17: 470–472
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McPoil TG, Cornwall MW, Yamada W. A comparison of two in‐shoe plantar pressure measurement systems. Lower Extremity 1995; 2: 95–103
   Google Scholar
• Meier RH, Meeks ED, Herman RM. Stump‐socket fit of below‐knee prostheses: Comparison of three methods of measurement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1973; 54: 553–558
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller F, Castagno P, Richards J, Lipton G. Using objective measurements from pedograph data to assess foot deformities. Gait Posture 1995; 3: 94
   Google Scholar
• Pogach L. PACT Newsletter. Department of Veterans Affairs. March, 1994; 2
   Google Scholar
• Polliack AA, Taylor RP, Bader DL. Sweat Analysis Following Pressure Ischaemia in a Group of Debilitated Subjects. J Rehabil Res Dev 1997; 34: 303–308
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Radcliffe CW, Foort J. The patellar‐tendon‐bearing below‐knee prosthesis. University of California, Biomechanics Laboratory. 1961
   Google Scholar
• Sanders JE, Daly CH, Burgess EM. Clinical measurement of normal and shear stresses on a trans‐tibial stump: Characteristics of wave‐form shapes during walking. Prosthet Orthot Int 1993; 17: 38–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• , Scientific Apparatus Makers Association Standard PMC20.1–1973. Process Measurement and Control Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Shem KL, Breakey JW, Werner PC. Pressures at the residual limb‐socket interface in trans‐tibial amputees with thigh lacer — side joints. J Prosthet Orthot 1998; 10: 51–55
   Google Scholar
• Silver‐Thorn MB, Steege JW, Childress DS. A review of prosthetic interface stress investigations. J Rehabil Res Dev 1996; 33: 253–266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumiya T, Suzuki Y, Kasahara T, Ogata H. Sensing stability and dynamic response of the F‐Scan in‐shoe sensing system: a technical note. J Rehabil Res Dev 1998; 35: 192–200
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar