You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12984-017-0340-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wolf Schweitzer, Michael J. Thali, David Egger |
| Abstract |
Prosthetic arm research predominantly focuses on "bionic" but not body-powered arms. However, any research orientation along user needs requires sufficiently precise workplace specifications and sufficiently hard testing. Forensic medicine is a demanding environment, also physically, also for non-disabled people, on several dimensions (e.g., distances, weights, size, temperature, time). As unilateral below elbow amputee user, the first author is in a unique position to provide direct comparison of a "bionic" myoelectric iLimb Revolution (Touch Bionics) and a customized body-powered arm which contains a number of new developments initiated or developed by the user: (1) quick lock steel wrist unit; (2) cable mount modification; (3) cast shape modeled shoulder anchor; (4) suspension with a soft double layer liner (Ohio Willowwood) and tube gauze (Molnlycke) combination. The iLimb is mounted on an epoxy socket; a lanyard fixed liner (Ohio Willowwood) contains magnetic electrodes (Liberating Technologies). An on the job usage of five years was supplemented with dedicated and focused intensive two-week use tests at work for both systems. The side-by-side comparison showed that the customized body-powered arm provides reliable, comfortable, effective, powerful as well as subtle service with minimal maintenance; most notably, grip reliability, grip force regulation, grip performance, center of balance, component wear down, sweat/temperature independence and skin state are good whereas the iLimb system exhibited a number of relevant serious constraints. Research and development of functional prostheses may want to focus on body-powered technology as it already performs on manually demanding and heavy jobs whereas eliminating myoelectric technology's constraints seems out of reach. Relevant testing could be developed to help expediting this. This is relevant as Swiss disability insurance specifically supports prostheses that enable actual work integration. Myoelectric and cosmetic arm improvement may benefit from a less forgiving focus on perfecting anthropomorphic appearance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 238 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 11% |
| Researcher | 20 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 11% |
| Unknown | 80 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 72 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 13% |
| Unknown | 89 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2022.
All research outputs
#5,029,802
of 24,917,903 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#285
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,666
of 454,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,917,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 454,239 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.