CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 519Prosthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityMuscle activation and electromyography studies

Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics

Biddiss, Elaine, Beaton, Dorcas, Chau, Tom·2007·Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology
DOI 10.1080/17483100701714733
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: To measure consumer satisfaction with upper limb prosthetics and provide an enumerated list of design priorities for future developments. METHODS: A self-administered, anonymous survey collected information on participant demographics, history of and goals for prosthesis use, satisfaction, and design priorities. The questionnaire was available online and in paper format and was distributed through healthcare providers, community support groups, and one prosthesis manufacturer; 242 participants of all ages and levels of upper limb absence completed the survey. RESULTS: Rates of rejection for myoelectric hands, passive hands, and body-powered hooks were 39%, 53%, and 50%, respectively. Prosthesis wearers were generally satisfied with their devices while prosthesis rejecters were dissatisfied. Reduced prosthesis weight emerged as the highest priority design concern of consumers. Lower cost ranked within the top five design priorities for adult wearers of all device types. Life-like appearance is a priority for passive/cosmetic prostheses, while improved harness comfort, wrist movement, grip control and strength are required for body-powered devices. Glove durability, lack of sensory feedback, and poor dexterity were also identified as design priorities for electric devices. CONCLUSIONS: Design priorities reflect consumer goals for prosthesis use and vary depending on the type of prosthesis used and age. Future design efforts should focus on the development of more light-weight, comfortable prostheses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17483100701714733

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 Biddiss et al., 2007

  • Fifty percent of users still prefer body-powered prostheses, possibly for improved feedback or referred sensation.

    “Fifty percent of users do still prefer body-powered prostheses, possibly for improved feedback or referred sensation (Biddiss et al., 2007).”

    From Selectivity and Longevity of Peripheral-Nerve and Machine Interfaces: A Review. (2017) · cites this paper as Biddiss et al., 2007

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Biddiss, E., Beaton, D., & Chau, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Institute for Work & Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Chau, Tom
ORCID
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2007-01
Volume
2
Issue
6
Pages
346-357
ISSN
  • 1748-3107 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-3115
DOI
10.1080/17483100701714733
OpenAlex
W2051230789
Cited by
519
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 21
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Keywords
upper limb prosthesis, customer satisfaction, design priorities, myoelectric hand, prosthesis rejection, prosthesis weight, prosthesis cost, grip control, sensory feedback, glove durability, dexterity, age differences
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Limbs, Child, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Patient Satisfaction, Upper Extremity, Qualitative Research, Young Adult

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