Efficiency of voluntary closing hand and hook prostheses

References

• Biddiss E, Chau T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: A survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int 2007;31(3):236–257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plettenburg DH. Basic requirements for upper extremity prostheses: The Wilmer approach. In: Chang HK, Zhang YT, editors. 20th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology – Proceedings; 1998. Hong Kong, China. IEEE; 1998. pp 2276–2281.
   Google Scholar
• Bowker HK, Michael JW, editors. Atlas of limb prosthetics: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. 2nd ed. Rosemont, IL, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Childress DS. Control strategy for upper-limb prostheses. In: Chang HK, Zhang YT, editors. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology – Proceedings; 1998. Hong Kong, China, IEEE; 1998. pp 2273–2275.
   Google Scholar
• Hepp-Reymond MC, Chakarov V, Schulte-Mönting J, Huethe F, Kristeva R. Role of proprioception and vision in handwriting. Brain Res Bull 2009;79(6):365–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarlegna FR, Malfait N, Bringoux L, Bourdin C, Vercher JL. Force-field adaptation without proprioception: Can vision be used to model limb dynamics? Neuropsychologia 2010;48(1):60–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blank A, Okamura AM, Kuchenbecker KJ. Effects of proprioceptive motion feedback on sighted and non-sighted control of a virtual hand prosthesis. Symposium on Haptics Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems 2008 – Proceedings, Haptics; 2008. Reno, NV. 2008. pp 141–142.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson DC. The choice of control system for multimovement prostheses: Extended physiological proprioception (EPP) In: Herberts P, Kadefors R, Magnusson R, Petersen I, editors. The control of upper-extremity prostheses and orthoses. Springfield, IL: Thomas; 1974. pp 146–150.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor CL. The biomechanics of the normal and of the amputated upper extremity. In: Klopsteg PE, Wilson PD, editors. Human limbs and their substitutes. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1954. pp 169–221.
   Google Scholar
• Collier M, LeBlanc M. Axilla bypass ring for shoulder harnesses for upper-limb prostheses. J Prosthet Orthot 1996;8(4):130–131.
   Google Scholar
• LeBlanc MA. Innovation and improvement of body-powered arm prostheses: A first step. Clin Prostet Orthot 1985;9(1):13–16.
   Google Scholar
• LeBlanc M, Setoguchi Y, Shaperman J, Carlson L. Mechanical work efficiencies of body-powered prehensors for young children. Children's Prosthet Orthot Clin 1992;27(3):70–75.
   Google Scholar
• Corin JD, Holley TM, Hasler RA, Ashman RB. Mechanical comparison of terminal devices. Clin Prosthet Orthot 1987;11:235–244.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson LE, Long MP. Quantitative evaluation of body-powered prostheses. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dynamic Systems and Control Division; 1988; Chicago, IL, USA. American Soc of Mechanical Engineers (ASME); 1988. pp 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• External limb prostheses and external orthoses – requirements and test methods, EN-ISO 22523.2006. (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Lunteren A van, Lunteren-Gerritsen GHM van. Field evaluation of below-elbow prostheses for children. Delft: Delft University of Technology; 1992. Report No.: N-400.
   Google Scholar
• Billock J. Upper limb prosthetic terminal devices: Hands versus hooks. Clin Prosthet Orthot 1986;10:7–65.
   Google Scholar
• O and P Business News. [news page on the Internet] 2002. Accessed 14 July 2009 from the website: http://www.oandpbiznews.com/2002w4/np.asp#3
   Google Scholar
• MATLAB. R2007b. The MathWorks Inc; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Herder JL, Cool JC, Plettenburg DH. Methods for reducing energy dissipation in cosmetic gloves. J Rehabil Res Develop 1998;35(2):201–209.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shaperman J, Setoguchi Y, Leblanc M. Upper limb strength of young limb deficient children as a factor in using body powered terminal devices – a pilot study. Children's Prosthet Orthot Clin 1992;27(3):89–96.
   Google Scholar
• Monod H. Contractility of muscle during prolonged static and repetitive dynamic activity. Ergonomics 1985;28(1):81–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller AD, Taylor CL, Zahm V. Studies to determine the functional requirements for hand and arm prosthesis. Los Angeles: Department of Engineering, University of California; 1947.
   Google Scholar
• LeBlanc M. Evaluation of cable vs. hydraulic transmission of forces for body-powered arm prostheses. Proceedings of the 8th Annual RESNA Conference; 1985. Washington, DC. 1985. pp 71–73.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson L. Efficiency of prosthetic cable and housing. J Prosthet Orthot 1995;7(3):96–99.
   Google Scholar