Advertisement

A Fluid Mechanics Approach to the Problem of Sensory Feedback in Prosthetic Devices

  • Roy B. DavisIII
  • Daniel J. Schneck

Abstract

Structural replacement of amputated limbs has been common for hundreds, even thousands, of years (1). However, the concept of restoring more than the lost structure and supporting musculature, for example, the lost sensory information, is relatively new. Even newer is the idea of using a fluid to transmit tactile information, rather than the more traditional transducers (e.g., strain gauges mounted on cables or various other parts of the terminal device). To use a fluid for this purpose increases the scope and potential for accessing sensory information. That is, the acquisition and transmission of such quantities as heat, prehensile slippage and/or prehensile forces (pressure and shear) is greatly simplified. On this basis, a new type of terminal device for an upper-extremity amputee has been designed and is described below. The device will allow fluids to act as the medium for the transmission of sensory feedback information to the prosthetic wearer. It also introduces a push/pull mode of operation which incorporates a versatile, previously unavailable, wrist mechanism.

Keywords

Sensory Feedback Cable Tension Terminal Device Myoelectric Control Artificial Limb 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Friedman, L.W., “Amputations and Prostheses in Primitive Cultures,” Bulletin of Prosthetics Research, Vol. 10–17, 1972, pp. 105–138.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alpenfels, E.J., “The Anthropology and Social Significance of the Human Hand,” Artificial Limbs, Vol. 2, 1955, pp. 4–21.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siehlow, K., “Phantom Controlled Electre Prothesis for BE and AE Amputees,” Translated from Orthopedic Technic, Number 3, 1951.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beeker, T.W., During, J., and DenHertob, A., “Artificial Touch in a Hand Prosthesis,” Medical and Biological Engineering, Vol. 5, 1967, pp. 47–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pfeiffer, E.A., Rhode, C.M., and Fabric, S.J., “An Experimental Device to Provide Substitute Tactile Sensation From the Anaesthetic Hand,” Medical and Biological Engineering, Vol. 7, 1969, pp. 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alles, D.S., “Kinesthetic Feedback System For Amputees Via the Tactile Sense,” presented at the Second Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Conferences, Toronto, 1968.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alles, D.S., “Information Transmission by Phantom Sensations,” IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, Vol. MMS-11, 1970.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mann, R.W. and Reimer, S.D., “Kinesthetic Sensation for the EMG Controlled ‘Boston Arm,’” IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, Vol. MMS-11, 1970, pp. 110–115.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kawamura, Z. and Sueda, 0., “Sensory Feedback Device for the Artificial Arm,” monograph presented at the Fourth Pan-Pacific Rehabilitation Conference, 1969.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, R.B., and Schneck, D.J., “Design of a Center Push/Pull Terminal Device and Quantitative Evaluation Technique For An Upper Extremity Prosthetic Limb,” Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Technical Report, #VPI-E-79–8, January, 1979, Available NTIS, Accession # PB 290 783/AS.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mason, C.P., “Design of a Powered Arm System for the Above-Elbow Amputee,” Bulletin of Prosthetics Research, Vol. 10–18, 1972, pp. 10–24Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Napier, J.R., “The Prehensile Movements of the Human Hand,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol. 38B, 1956, pp. 902–913.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor, C.L. and Schwartz, R.J., “The Anatomy and Mechanics of the Human Hand,” Artificial Limbs, Vol. 2, 1955, pp. 22–35.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor, C.L., “The Biomechanics of the Normal and of the Amputated Upper Extremity,” Human Limbs and Their Substitutes eds. Klopsteg, P.E. and Wilson, P.D., Hafner Publishing Company, New York, 1968, pp. 169–221.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davis, R.B., notes from research at Duke University, 1976, unpublished.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sanschi, W.R., ed., Manual of Upper-Extremity Prosthetics Department of Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles, 1958, pp. 42–44.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fletcher, M.J., “New Developments in Hands and Hooks,” Human Limbs and Their Substitutes eds. Klopsteg, P. E. and Wilson, P.D., Hafner Publishing Company, New York, 1968, pp. 222–238.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Childress, D.S., “Neural Organization and Myoelectric Control,” Neural. Organization and Its Relevance to Prosthetics ed. Fields, W.S., Symposia Specialists, Miami, 1973, pp. 117–126.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Childress, D.S., Holmes, D.W., and Billock, J.N., “Ideas on Myoelectric Prosthetic Systems for Upper Exremity Amputees,” The Control of Upper Extremity Prostheses and Orthoses, eds. Herberts, P., Kadefors, R., Magnusson, R., and Peterson, I., Thomas Books, Springfield, Illinois, 1974, pp. 86–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy B. DavisIII
    • 1
  • Daniel J. Schneck
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics Virginia Polytechnic InstituteState UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations