Cited by 427Tactile and Sensory InteractionsProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsNeuroscience and Neural Engineering

Prosthesis with neuromorphic multilayered e-dermis perceives touch and pain

Open access
Osborn, Luke E., Dragomir, Andrei, Betthauser, Joseph L., Hunt, Christopher L., Nguyen, Harrison H., Kaliki, Rahul R., Thakor, Nitish V.·2018·Science Robotics

Abstract

A multilayered e-dermis allows a prosthesis and an amputee to perceive a range of innocuous and noxious tactile stimuli.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/scirobotics.aat3818

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Inaccurate communication channels in medical robotics go against visual cues, leading to cognitive confusion, which is the number one reason why 40% of amputees reject wearing a prosthetic device.

    “The problem with inaccurate communication channels in medical robotics is that it goes against visual cues from the user leading to cognitive confusion,[428] which is the number one reason why 40% of amputees reject wearing a prosthetic device.[19]”

    From Flexible Electronics and Devices as Human–Machine Interfaces for Medical Robotics (2022) · cites this paper as [428]

    The citation to this paper follows the claim that cognitive confusion is the leading reason 40% of amputees reject prostheses. The Introduction discusses the lack of sensory feedback, and Materials and Methods describes experiments with one amputee, but neither reports a rejection rate or identifies cognitive confusion as a reason for rejection (searched: 40%, rejection, abandonment, visual cues). (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Osborn, L. E., Dragomir, A., Betthauser, J. L., Hunt, C. L., Nguyen, H. H., Kaliki, R. R., & Thakor, N. V.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
  • Osborn, Luke E.
  • Thakor, Nitish V.
Venue
Science Robotics
Published
2018-06-20
Volume
3
Issue
19
ISSN
2470-9476 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809670021
Cited by
427
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 9
FWCI
22.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Science Robotics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (T32EB003383)
  • Johns Hopkins University (Space@Hopkins)
  • Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
Keywords
prosthetic hand, tactile perception, pain perception, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, amputees, mechanoreceptors, nociceptors, phantom hand, EEG, somatosensory feedback, tactile feedback

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