Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Heller, B W
Right arrow Articles by Howitt, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Heller, B W
Right arrow Articles by Howitt, J
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

A pilot study comparing the cognitive demand of walking for transfemoral amputees using the Intelligent Prosthesis with that using conventionally damped knees

B W Heller

Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Central Sheffield University Hospitals, Sheffield, UK

D Datta

J Howitt

Mobility and Specialised Rehabilitation Centre, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK

Objective: To compare the cognitive demand of walking when using a conventional prosthesis with that using a microprocessor-controlled prosthesis.

Design: Ten unilateral transfemoral amputees wearing conventional pneumatic swing phase control (conventional prosthesis) prostheses walked on a treadmill which enforced a pattern of constantly varying speeds. The subjects simultaneously performed a simple or a complex distracting task. Following a period of accustomization, the subjects performed the same test wearing a prosthesis with microprocessor control of swing phase damping (the Intelligent Prosthesis).

Outcome measures: The three-dimensional trajectory (sway) of a retroreflective marker attached to the forehead was measured by a video-based motion analysis system, and used as a measure of gait quality. The ratio of the sway for the complex task over the simple task (the ‘automation index’) was used as a measure of the degree of automation of gait.

Results: No significant differences were found in the automation index between the two devices. However, the total sway for the conventional prosthesis was significantly higher. Sway during the complex distracting task was significantly higher than during the simple task.

Conclusions: The microprocessor-controlled prosthesis was not found to be less cognitively demanding than a conventional prosthesis.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 14, No. 5, 518-522 (2000)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215500cr345oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clin RehabilHome page
D. Datta, B. Heller, and J. Howitt
A comparative evaluation of oxygen consumption and gait pattern in amputees using Intelligent Prostheses and conventionally damped knee swing-phase control
Clinical Rehabilitation, April 1, 2005; 19(4): 398 - 403.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Advertisement