Cited by 114Prosthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsOrgan and Tissue Transplantation ResearchAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

Forearm amputees' views of prosthesis use and sensory feedback

Wijk, Ulrika, Carlsson, Ingela·2015·Journal of Hand Therapy

Abstract

Study design Qualitative descriptive. Introduction The lack of sensory feedback in today's hand prostheses has been in focus recently but the amputees' experiences need to be further investigated. Purpose To explore forearm amputees' views of prosthesis use and sensory feedback. Methods Thirteen unilateral congenital or traumatic forearm amputees were interviewed. The transcribed text was subjected to content analysis. Results Prostheses both facilitate and limit occupational performance. Appearance is important for identity and blending into society. The feeling of agency regarding the prostheses is present but not that of body ownership. Future expectations concerned improved mobility, cosmetics, and sensory feedback. Conclusions This study allows a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between a prosthetic device and the wearer. Today's prostheses allow the wearer to feel agency concerning the artificial limb but the lack of sensory feedback seems to be an important factor still blocking the achievement of body ownership of the prosthesis. Level of evidence Not applicable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jht.2015.01.013

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Natural sensory feedback through prostheses is especially desired for those who have lost upper limbs.

    “Particularly for those who have lost upper limbs, natural sensory feedback through the prostheses is especially desired (Biddiss et al., 2007; Pylatiuk et al., 2007; Wijk and Carlsson, 2015).”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Wijk and Carlsson, 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wijk, U., & Carlsson, I.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Wijk, Ulrika
Venue
Journal of Hand Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
269-278
ISSN
0894-1130 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1972175108
Cited by
114
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hand Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Swedish Research Council
  • Promobilia Foundation
  • Skåne County Council Research and Development Foundation
  • Skåne University Hospital Malmö
  • Faculty of Medicine Lund University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Organ and Tissue Transplantation Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
forearm amputation, prosthetic hand, sensory feedback, prosthesis use, body ownership, agency, occupational performance, congenital amputation, traumatic amputation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Amniotic Band Syndrome, Amputation Stumps, Amputation, Traumatic, Artificial Limbs, Female, Hand, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prosthesis Design, Patient Satisfaction, Hand Strength, Feedback, Sensory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review