↓ Skip to main content

Literature Review on Needs of Upper Limb Prosthesis Users

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
1077 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
Literature Review on Needs of Upper Limb Prosthesis Users
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00209
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Cordella, Anna Lisa Ciancio, Rinaldo Sacchetti, Angelo Davalli, Andrea Giovanni Cutti, Eugenio Guglielmelli, Loredana Zollo

Abstract

The loss of one hand can significantly affect the level of autonomy and the capability of performing daily living, working and social activities. The current prosthetic solutions contribute in a poor way to overcome these problems due to limitations in the interfaces adopted for controlling the prosthesis and to the lack of force or tactile feedback, thus limiting hand grasp capabilities. This paper presents a literature review on needs analysis of upper limb prosthesis users, and points out the main critical aspects of the current prosthetic solutions, in terms of users satisfaction and activities of daily living they would like to perform with the prosthetic device. The ultimate goal is to provide design inputs in the prosthetic field and, contemporary, increase user satisfaction rates and reduce device abandonment. A list of requirements for upper limb prostheses is proposed, grounded on the performed analysis on user needs. It wants to (i) provide guidelines for improving the level of acceptability and usefulness of the prosthesis, by accounting for hand functional and technical aspects; (ii) propose a control architecture of PNS-based prosthetic systems able to satisfy the analyzed user wishes; (iii) provide hints for improving the quality of the methods (e.g., questionnaires) adopted for understanding the user satisfaction with their prostheses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 1,077 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 1068 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 210 19%
Student > Bachelor 177 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 154 14%
Researcher 85 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 43 4%
Other 122 11%
Unknown 286 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 470 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 75 7%
Computer Science 35 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 3%
Neuroscience 29 3%
Other 114 11%
Unknown 320 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 May 2023.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,073
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,657
of 326,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#78
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 326,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.