Human-prosthesis coordination: A preliminary study exploring coordination with a powered ankle-foot prosthesis.
Human-prosthesis interaction
Human-prosthesis interface
Powered ankle-foot prosthesis
Transtibial amputee
Journal
Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
ISSN: 1879-1271
Titre abrégé: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611877
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
16
01
2020
revised:
24
08
2020
accepted:
31
08
2020
pubmed:
16
9
2020
medline:
30
4
2021
entrez:
15
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Powered ankle-foot prostheses were developed to replicate the mechanics of the biological ankle by providing positive work during the push-off phase of gait. However, the benefits of powered prostheses on improving overall human gait efficiency (usually quantified by metabolic cost) have not been consistently shown. Here, we have focused on the mechanical work produced at the prosthetic ankle and its interaction with the amputee's movement. Five unilateral transtibial amputees walked on a treadmill using 1) a powered ankle-foot prosthesis and 2) their daily passive device. We determined the net ankle work and ankle work loops on the prosthesis-side to quantify the efficiency of the human-prosthesis physical interaction. We further studied peak propulsion timing and the posture of the amputee's lower limb and prosthesis as indicators of the human-prosthesis coordination. Comparisons were made between the passive and powered prosthesis conditions for each participant. The powered prosthesis did not consistently increase net ankle work compared to each participant's passive device. For participants that lacked efficiency in interacting with the powered prosthesis, we observed 1) early prosthesis-side peak propulsion timing (≥ 4% earlier) and 2) a more vertical residual shank at the time of peak propulsion (> 2° more vertical) indicating that the human's limb movement and the prosthesis control during push-off were not well coordinated. Results from this preliminary study highlight the need for future work to systematically quantify the coordination between the human and powered prosthesis and understand how such coordination at the joint level influences overall gait efficiency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Powered ankle-foot prostheses were developed to replicate the mechanics of the biological ankle by providing positive work during the push-off phase of gait. However, the benefits of powered prostheses on improving overall human gait efficiency (usually quantified by metabolic cost) have not been consistently shown. Here, we have focused on the mechanical work produced at the prosthetic ankle and its interaction with the amputee's movement.
METHODS
Five unilateral transtibial amputees walked on a treadmill using 1) a powered ankle-foot prosthesis and 2) their daily passive device. We determined the net ankle work and ankle work loops on the prosthesis-side to quantify the efficiency of the human-prosthesis physical interaction. We further studied peak propulsion timing and the posture of the amputee's lower limb and prosthesis as indicators of the human-prosthesis coordination. Comparisons were made between the passive and powered prosthesis conditions for each participant.
FINDINGS
The powered prosthesis did not consistently increase net ankle work compared to each participant's passive device. For participants that lacked efficiency in interacting with the powered prosthesis, we observed 1) early prosthesis-side peak propulsion timing (≥ 4% earlier) and 2) a more vertical residual shank at the time of peak propulsion (> 2° more vertical) indicating that the human's limb movement and the prosthesis control during push-off were not well coordinated.
INTERPRETATION
Results from this preliminary study highlight the need for future work to systematically quantify the coordination between the human and powered prosthesis and understand how such coordination at the joint level influences overall gait efficiency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32932017
pii: S0268-0033(20)30290-4
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105171
pmc: PMC7749005
mid: NIHMS1630417
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105171Subventions
Organisme : NIBIB NIH HHS
ID : R01 EB024570
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:3020-6
pubmed: 18002631
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2013 Jun 07;10:49
pubmed: 23758860
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Nov;93(11):1911-8
pubmed: 22732369
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Feb 21;12:20
pubmed: 25881130
J R Soc Interface. 2018 Aug;15(145):
pubmed: 30158189
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016 Jun;40(3):311-9
pubmed: 25628378
J Biomech. 2016 Oct 3;49(14):3452-3459
pubmed: 27702444
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 19;14(11):e0225032
pubmed: 31743353
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017 Oct;41(5):431-445
pubmed: 28946826
Clin Rehabil. 2018 Mar;32(3):319-329
pubmed: 28750586
Sci Rep. 2018 Oct 17;8(1):15303
pubmed: 30333504
Trends Neurosci. 2002 Sep;25(9):462-7
pubmed: 12183207
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2019 Sep 11;16(1):112
pubmed: 31511010
IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2013 Jun;2013:6650375
pubmed: 24187194
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Feb 7;279(1728):457-64
pubmed: 21752817
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 19;10(8):e0135342
pubmed: 26288361
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015 Feb 22;12:21
pubmed: 25889201
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 19;12(9):e0184054
pubmed: 28926613