Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered."— Presentation transcript:

1 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):253–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123JSP Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life Kelsey Berning; Sarah Cohick; Reva Johnson, MS; Laura Ann Miller, PhD, CP; Jonathon W. Sensinger, PhD

2 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):253–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123JSP Aim – Determine whether using voluntary opening or voluntary closing device makes functional difference in activities of daily living. – Assess possibility of providing both functions in one device. Relevance – Most persons with upper-limb amputation use body- powered prostheses but must choose between voluntary opening and voluntary closing devices.

3 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):253–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123JSP Method Subjects – 29 nondisabled (used body-powered bypass prosthesis). – 2 with unilateral transradial amputation (used conventional body-powered device). Measures – Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure to examine functional difference between opening and closing prehensors. – Survey to determine prehensor preference for specific tasks and assess possible advantage of prehensor that switches between modes.

4 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):253–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123JSP Results Voluntary closing prehensor was 1.3 s faster than voluntary opening prehensor across tasks. Subjects agreed on which types of tasks they preferred to do with each prehensor.

5 This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered voluntary opening and voluntary closing prehensor for activities of daily life. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(3):253–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.05.0123JSP Conclusion 25 subjects wanted a device that could switch between opening and closing modes to perform particular tasks.


Download ppt "This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Berning K, Cohick S, Johnson R, Miller LA, Sensinger JW. Comparison of body-powered."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google