Amputees’ preferences for prosthesis settings are critical not only for their psychological well-being but also for long-term adherence to device adoption and health. Although active lower-limb prostheses can provide enhanced functionality than passive devices, little is known about the mechanism of preferences for settings in active devices. Therefore, a think-aloud study was conducted on three amputees to unravel their preferences for a powered robotic knee prosthesis during user-guided auto-tuning. The inductive thematic analysis revealed that amputee patients were more likely to use their own passive device rather than the intact leg as the reference for the natural walking that they were looking for in the powered device. There were large individual differences in factors influencing naturalness. The mental optimization of preference decisions was mostly based on the noticeableness of the differences between knee profiles. The implications on future design and research in active prostheses were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AliliA.NalamV.LiM.LiuM.FengJ.SiJ.HuangH. (2023). A Novel Framework to Facilitate User Preferred Tuning for a Robotic Knee Prosthesis. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering.
2.
AliliA.NalamV.LiM.LiuM.SiJ.HuangH. H. (2021). User controlled interface for tuning robotic knee prosthesis. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 6190-6195). IEEE.
3.
AndrysekJ.MicheliniA.EshraghiA.KhengS.HeangT.ThorP. (2021). Functional outcomes and user preferences of individuals with transfemoral amputations using two types of knee joints in under- resourced settings. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 45(6), 463-469.
4.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
5.
ClitesT. R.ShepherdM. K.IngrahamK. A.RouseE. J. (2020, November). Patient preference in the selection of prosthetic joint stiffness. In 2020 8th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) (pp. 1073-1079). IEEE.
6.
ClitesT. R.ShepherdM. K.IngrahamK. A.WontorcikL.RouseE. J. (2021). Understanding patient preference in prosthetic ankle stiffness. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 18(1), 1-16.
7.
GaileyR.AllenK.CastlesJ.KucharickJ.RoederM. (2008). Review of secondary physical conditions associated with lower-limb. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 45(1-4), 15-30.
8.
KahleJ. T.HighsmithM. J.HubbardS. L. (2008). Comparison of nonmicroprocessor knee mechanism versus C-Leg on Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, stumbles, falls, walking tests, stair descent, and knee preference. Journal of rehabilitation research and development, 45(1), 1.
9.
KloddE.HansenA.FatoneS.EdwardsM. (2010). Effects of prosthetic foot forefoot flexibility on oxygen cost and subjective preference rankings of unilateral transtibial prosthesis users. J Rehabil Res Dev, 47(6), 543-552.
10.
HafnerB. J.WillinghamL. L.BuellN. C.AllynK. J.SmithD. G. (2007). Evaluation of function, performance, and preference as transfemoral amputees transition from mechanical to microprocessor control of the prosthetic knee. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88(2), 207-217.
11.
HandfordM. L.SrinivasanM. (2016). Robotic lower limb prosthesis design through simultaneous computer optimizations of human and prosthesis costs. Scientific reports, 6(1), 19983.
12.
HowardC.WallaceC.StokicD. S. (2012). Lower limb preference on goal-oriented tasks in unilateral prosthesis users. Gait & Posture, 36(2), 249-253.
13.
IngrahamK. A.RemyC. D.RouseE. J. (2022). The role of user preference in the customized control of robotic exoskeletons. Science robotics, 7(64), eabj3487.
14.
LathouwersE.DíazM. A.MaricotA.TassignonB.CherelleC.CherelleP.… De PauwK. (2023). Therapeutic benefits of lower limb prostheses: a systematic review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 20(1), 1-27.
15.
LiM.WenY.GaoX.SiJ.HuangH. (2021). Toward expedited impedance tuning of a robotic prosthesis for personalized gait assistance by reinforcement learning control. IEEE Transactions on Robotics.
16.
LiuM.ZhangF.DatserisP.HuangH. H. (2014). Improving finite state impedance control of active-transfemoral prosthesis using dempster- shafer based state transition rules. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 76(3), 461-474.
17.
McDonaldK. A.TeaterR. H.CruzJ. P.KerrJ. T.BastasG.ZelikK. E. (2021). Adding a toe joint to a prosthesis: walking biomechanics, energetics, and preference of individuals with unilateral below-knee limb loss. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1924.
18.
ProstV.JohnsonW. B.KentJ. A.MajorM. J.WinterA. G. (2022). Biomechanical evaluation over level ground walking of user-specific prosthetic feet designed using the lower leg trajectory error framework. Scientific reports, 12(1), 5306.
19.
RaschkeS. U.OrendurffM. S.MattieJ. L.KenyonD. E.JonesO. Y.MoeD.… KobayashiT. (2015). Biomechanical characteristics, patient preference and activity level with different prosthetic feet: a randomized double blind trial with laboratory and community testing. Journal of biomechanics, 48(1), 146-152.
20.
SamuelssonK. A.TöytäriO.SalminenA. L.BrandtÅ. (2012). Effects of lower limb prosthesis on activity, participation, and quality of life: a systematic review. Prosthetics and orthotics international, 36(2), 145-158.
21.
SchlaflyM.ReedK. B. (2020). Novel passive ankle-foot prosthesis mimics non-disabled ankle angles and ground reaction forces. Clinical Biomechanics, 72, 202-210.
22.
SchaffalitzkyE.NiMhurchadhaS.GallagherP.HofkampS.MacLachlanM.WegenerS. T. (2009). Identifying the values and preferences of prosthetic users: a case study series using the repertory grid technique. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 33(2), 157-166.
23.
ShepherdM. K.AzocarA. F.MajorM. J.RouseE. J. (2018). Amputee perception of prosthetic ankle stiffness during locomotion. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 15(1), 1-10.
24.
ShepherdM. K.RouseE. J. (2020). Comparing preference of ankle–foot stiffness in below-knee amputees and prosthetists. Scientific reports, 10(1), 16067.
25.
ShepherdM. K.SimonA. M.ZiskJ.HargroveL. J. (2020). Patient- preferred prosthetic ankle-foot alignment for ramps and level-ground walking. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 29, 52-59.
26.
SunY.TangH.TangY.ZhengJ.DongD.ChenX.… LuoJ. (2021). Review of recent progress in robotic knee prosthesis related techniques: structure, actuation and control. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 18(4), 764-785.
27.
WurdemanS. R.StevensP. M.CampbellJ. H. (2018). Mobility Analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT I): Quality of life and satisfaction are strongly related to mobility for patients with a lower limb prosthesis. Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 42(5), 498-503.
28.
VrielingA. H.Van KeekenH. G.SchoppenT.OttenE.HalbertsmaJ. P. K.HofA. L.PostemaK. (2007). Obstacle crossing in lower limb amputees. Gait & posture, 26(4), 587-594.
29.
VrielingA. H.Van KeekenH. G.SchoppenT.OttenE.HalbertsmaJ. P. K.HofA. L.PostemaK. (2008). Gait termination in lower limb amputees. Gait & posture, 27(1), 82-90.
30.
YuanJ.BaiX.AliliA.LiuM.FengJ.HuangH. (2022a). Understanding the Preferences for Lower-Limb Prosthesis: A Think- Aloud Study during User-Guided Auto-Tuning. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 2159-2163). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
31.
YuanJ.BaiX.DriscollB.LiuM.HuangH.FengJ. (2022b). Standing and Walking Attention Visual Field (SWAVF) task: A new method to assess visuospatial attention during walking. Applied ergonomics, 104, 103804.
