↓ Skip to main content

Is the Prosthetic Homologue Necessary for Embodiment?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurorobotics, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
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.
Title
Is the Prosthetic Homologue Necessary for Embodiment?
Published in
Frontiers in Neurorobotics, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnbot.2016.00021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chelsea Dornfeld, Michelle Swanston, Joseph Cassella, Casey Beasley, Jacob Green, Yonatan Moshayev, Michael Wininger

Abstract

Embodiment is the process by which patients with limb loss come to accept their peripheral device as a natural extension of self. However, there is little guidance as to how exacting the prosthesis must be in order for embodiment to take place: is it necessary for the prosthetic hand to look just like the absent hand? Here, we describe a protocol for testing whether an individual would select a hand that looks like their own from among a selection of five hands, and whether the hand selection (regardless of homology) is consistent across multiple exposures to the same (but reordered) set of candidate hands. Pilot results using healthy volunteers reveals that hand selection is only modestly consistent, and that selection of the prosthetic homologue is atypical (61 of 192 total exposures). Our protocol can be executed in minutes, and makes use of readily available equipment and softwares. We present both a face-to-face and a virtual protocol, for maximum flexibility of implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 7%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 43%
Psychology 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,925,837
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#79
of 869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,686
of 420,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurorobotics
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 869 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 420,829 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.