Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users

Abstract Prosthesis embodiment, the perception of a prosthesis as part of one’s body, may be an important component of functional recovery for individuals with upper limb absence. This work determined whether embodiment differs between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users. In a sample of ni...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Susannah M. Engdahl, Sean K. Meehan, Deanna H. Gates
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2020
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/c0ce4599334a40d18650218f09a34c27
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:c0ce4599334a40d18650218f09a34c27
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:c0ce4599334a40d18650218f09a34c272021-12-02T18:48:22ZDifferential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users10.1038/s41598-020-72470-02045-2322https://doaj.org/article/c0ce4599334a40d18650218f09a34c272020-09-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72470-0https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Prosthesis embodiment, the perception of a prosthesis as part of one’s body, may be an important component of functional recovery for individuals with upper limb absence. This work determined whether embodiment differs between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users. In a sample of nine individuals with transradial limb absence, embodiment was quantified using a survey regarding prosthesis ownership and agency. The extent to which the prosthesis affected the body schema, the representation of the body’s dimensions, was assessed using limb length estimation. Because body-powered prostheses offer proprioceptive feedback that myoelectric prostheses do not, it was hypothesized that both measures would reveal stronger embodiment of body-powered prostheses. However, our results did not show differences across the two prosthesis designs. Instead, body schema was influenced by several patient-specific characteristics, including the cause of limb absence (acquired or congenital) and hours of daily prosthesis wear. These results indicate that regular prosthesis wear and embodiment are connected, regardless of the actual prosthesis design. Identifying whether embodiment is a direct consequence of regular prosthesis use would offer insight on how individuals with limb absence could modify their behavior to more fully embody their prosthesis.Susannah M. EngdahlSean K. MeehanDeanna H. GatesNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 10, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2020)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Susannah M. Engdahl Sean K. Meehan Deanna H. Gates Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users
description	Abstract Prosthesis embodiment, the perception of a prosthesis as part of one’s body, may be an important component of functional recovery for individuals with upper limb absence. This work determined whether embodiment differs between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users. In a sample of nine individuals with transradial limb absence, embodiment was quantified using a survey regarding prosthesis ownership and agency. The extent to which the prosthesis affected the body schema, the representation of the body’s dimensions, was assessed using limb length estimation. Because body-powered prostheses offer proprioceptive feedback that myoelectric prostheses do not, it was hypothesized that both measures would reveal stronger embodiment of body-powered prostheses. However, our results did not show differences across the two prosthesis designs. Instead, body schema was influenced by several patient-specific characteristics, including the cause of limb absence (acquired or congenital) and hours of daily prosthesis wear. These results indicate that regular prosthesis wear and embodiment are connected, regardless of the actual prosthesis design. Identifying whether embodiment is a direct consequence of regular prosthesis use would offer insight on how individuals with limb absence could modify their behavior to more fully embody their prosthesis.
format	article
author	Susannah M. Engdahl Sean K. Meehan Deanna H. Gates
author_facet	Susannah M. Engdahl Sean K. Meehan Deanna H. Gates
author_sort	Susannah M. Engdahl
title	Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users
title_short	Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users
title_full	Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users
title_fullStr	Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users
title_full_unstemmed	Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users
title_sort	differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2020
url	https://doaj.org/article/c0ce4599334a40d18650218f09a34c27
work_keys_str_mv	AT susannahmengdahl differentialexperiencesofembodimentbetweenbodypoweredandmyoelectricprosthesisusers AT seankmeehan differentialexperiencesofembodimentbetweenbodypoweredandmyoelectricprosthesisusers AT deannahgates differentialexperiencesofembodimentbetweenbodypoweredandmyoelectricprosthesisusers
_version_	1718377647293071360

Differential experiences of embodiment between body-powered and myoelectric prosthesis users

Ejemplares similares