Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMolly Arnold Modified over 8 years ago
1
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068JSP User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm Linda Resnik, PT, PhD; Shana Lieberman Klinger, MA; Katherine Etter, MS
2
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068JSP Aim – Summarize feedback from VA subjects and clinicians gathered during VA optimization study of DEKA Arm (second-generation [gen 2] and third-generation [gen 3] prototypes). Relevance – DEKA used feedback from VA optimization study to refine gen 2 prototype.
3
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068JSP Method 33 unique subjects participated in VA evaluation (26 for gen 2, 13 for gen 3, and 5 for both). Subject data were gathered through structured and open-ended surveys and audio- and videotaped sessions. Study prosthetists and therapists provided ongoing feedback and completed surveys at end of each subject’s protocol.
4
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068JSP Results 11 categories of feedback were identified: – Weight. – Cosmesis. – Hand grips. – Wrist design. – Elbow design. – End-point control. – Foot controls. – Batteries and chargers. – Visual notifications. – Tactor. – Socket features.
5
This article and any supplementary material should be cited as follows: Resnik L, Klinger SL, Etter K. User and clinician perspectives on DEKA Arm: Results of VA study to optimize DEKA Arm. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2014;51(1):XX–XX. http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068 Slideshow Project DOI:10.1682/JRRD.2013.03.0068JSP Conclusion Final feedback on gen 3 was generally positive, particularly regarding improvements in wrist design, visual notifications, foot controls, end- point control, and cosmesis. Additional refinements to make device lighter in weight, eliminate external wires and cables, and eliminate external battery may further enhance its perceived usability and acceptability.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.