A history of prosthesis control techniques is outlined. An alternative approach to hand and arm prosthesis control is proposed, and a working-prototype model is described. Commercial artificial limbs have function limited by a small number of user-interface control channels, and they are awkward to operate because joints are turned on and off in a serial fashion and not in parallel. Because of natural anatomic and physiologic similarities between the upper and lower extremities, the foot and leg is an ideal control interface. A stocking laced with multiple sensors can provide input on multiple joint positions, and this information used to control homologous movements in a prosthetic upper extremity. One significant advantage of this form of control is simultaneous activation of multiple joints.
CarlsonLEYeungQS. The Mechanics of dual-control above-elbow prostheses. Ann Biomed Eng1975; 3: 1–12.
2.
van LunterenAvan Lunteren-GerritsenGHStassenHG. A field evaluation of arm prostheses for unilateral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int1983; 7: 141–51.
3.
SeamoneW. Development and evaluation of externally powered upper-limb prosthesis. Bull Prosth Res1970; 10: 57–63.
4.
PeizerEWrightDWPirrelloTJr. Current indications for upper-extremity powered components. Bull Prosth Res1970; 10: 22–42.
5.
TreflerE. A comparison of control systems for upper extremity prosthetics. Can Occup Ther1972; 39: 73–85.
6.
ParkerPAScottRN. Myoelectric control of prostheses. Crit Rev Biomed Eng1986; 13: 283–310.
7.
JacobsenSCKnuttiDFJohnsonRT. Development of the Utah artificial arm. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng1982; 29: 249–69.
8.
ChildressDSBullockJN. An experiment with the control of a hybrid prosthetic system: Electric elbow, body-powered hook. Bull Prosth Res1970; 10: 62–77.
9.
GraupeD. Control of upper-limb prostheses in several degrees of freedom. Bull Prosth Res1974;Fall:226–36.
10.
RichardPDGanderREParkerPA. Multistate myoelectric control: The feasibility of 5-state-controlJ Rehabil R&D1982; 20: 84–6.
11.
DoublerJAChildressDS. Design and evaluation of a prosthesis control system based on the concept of extended physiological proprioception. J Rehabil R&D1984; 21: 19–31.
12.
GibbonsDTO'RiainMDPhilippe-AugusteS. An above-elbow prosthesis employing programmed linkages. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng1987; 34: 493–8.
13.
SeamoneWSchmeisserG, Status of the Johns Hopkins Research Program on upper limb prosthesis-orthosis power and control system. Bull Prosth Res1974;Fall:237–44.
14.
SwainIDNightingaleJM. An adaptive control system for a complete hand/arm prosthesis. J Biomed Eng1980; 2: 163–6.
15.
KyberdPJChappellP. The Southamptom Hand: An intelligent myoelectric prosthesis. J Rehabil R&D1994; 31: 326–4.
16.
PriorRELymanJ. Electrocutaneous feedback for artificial limbs. Bull Prosth Res1975;Fall:3–37.
17.
ScottRN. Feedback in myoelectric prostheses. Clin Orthop1990; 256: 58–63.
18.
SteinRBCharlesDHofferJA. New approaches for the control of powered prostheses particularly by high-level amputees. Bull Prosth Res1980; 17: 51–62.
19.
SteinRBCharlesDWalleyM. Bioelectric control of powered limbs for amputees. Adv Neurol1983; 39: 1093–193.
20.
NirenbergLMHanleyJStearEB. A new approach to prosthetic control: EEG motor signal tracking with an adaptively designed phase-locked loop. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng1971; 18: 389–98.
21.
SchmidtEM. Single neuron recording from motor cortex as a possible source of signals for control of external devices. Ann Biomed Eng1980: 8: 339–49.
22.
HofferJALoebGE. Implantable electrical and mechanical interfaces with nerve and muscle. Ann Biomed Eng1980; 8: 351–60.
23.
KovacsGTStormentCWHalks-MillerM. Silicon-substrate microelectrode arrays for parallel recording of neural activity in peripheral and cranial nerves. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng1994; 41: 567–76.
24.
LawHT. Engineering of upper limb prostheses. Orthop Clin North Am1981; 12: 929–51.
25.
MillsteinSGHeigerHHunterGA. Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: A comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses. Prosthet Orthop Int1986; 10: 27–34.
26.
JebsenRHTalorNTrieshmannRB. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1969; 50: 311–9.
27.
WiseSGardnerWSabelmanE. Evaluation of a fiber optic glove for semi-automated goniometric measurements. J Rehabil R&D1990; 27: 411–24.
28.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Notice; Part II. 1998; 63: 10427–37.
29.
MaloneJMFlemingLLRobersonJ. Immediate, early, and late postsurgical management of upper-limb amputation. J Rehabil R&D1984; 21: 33–41.
30.
LeonardJAJrEsquenaziAFisherSV. Prosthetics, orthotics, and assistive devices: 1. General concepts. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1989; 70: 195–201.
