1. Effect of Training on Upper-Extremity Prosthetic Performance and Motor Learning: A Single-Case Study 
Alexander W. Dromerick, MD, Christopher N. Schabowsky, MS, Rahsaan J. Holley, MS, OTR, Brian Monroe, CPO, Anne Markotic, MOT, OTR, Peter S. Lum, PhD 
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 
Volume 89, Issue 6, Pages (June 2008)
DOI: /j.apmr
Copyright © 2008 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

2. Fig 1
Schematic of the robotic manipulandum experimental task design. The subject's hand started at 1 of the alternating start positions (ipsilateral [IPS], contralateral [CON]) and he performed reaching movements toward the target.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2008 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

3. Fig 2
(A) ARAT total and box and block test scores. (B) ARAT subscale scores. Time points: t0, old prosthesis; t1, new prosthesis, pretraining; t2, new prosthesis, 11 hours training; t3, new prosthesis, 19 hours training. Abbreviation: Mvmt, movement.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2008 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

4. Fig 3
(A), (B) The subject's performance improved between tests 1 and 3 (training period) when considering the last 20 trials in each session. Significant differences between test sessions were determined with t tests of means, with a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. *P<.05.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2008 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions