A quantitative comparison between the mHand Adapt passive adjustable hand prosthesis and its predecessor, the Delft Self-Grasping Hand
A quantitative comparison between the mHand Adapt passive adjustable hand prosthesis and its predecessor, the Delft Self-Grasping Hand
INTRODUCTION: The Delft Self-Grasping Hand (SGH) is an adjustable passive hand prosthesis that relies on wrist flexion to adjust the aperture of its grasp. The mechanism requires engagement of the contralateral hand meaning that hand is not available for other tasks. A commercialised version of this prosthesis, known as the mHand Adapt, includes a new release mechanism, which avoids the need to press a release button, and changes to the hand shape. This study is the first of its kind to compare two passive adjustable hand prostheses on the basis of quantitative scoring and contralateral hand involvement.
METHODS: 10 anatomically intact participants were asked to perform the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) with the mHand. Functionality and contralateral hand involvement were recorded and compared against SGH data originating from a previous trial involving a nearly identical testing regime.
RESULTS: mHand exhibited higher functionality scores and less contralateral hand interaction time, especially during release-aiding interactions. Additionally, a wider range of tasks could be completed using the mHand than the SGH.
DISCUSSION: Geometric changes make the mHand more capable of manipulating smaller objects. The altered locking mechanism means some tasks can be performed without any contralateral hand involvement and a higher number of tasks do not require contralateral involvement when releasing. Some participants struggled with achieving a good initial grip due to the inability to tighten the grasp once already formed.
CONCLUSION: The mHand offers the user higher functionality scores with less contralateral hand interaction time and the ability to perform a wider range of tasks. However, there are some design trade-offs which may make it slightly harder to learn to use.
Artificial Limbs, Hand, Hand Strength, Humans, Learning, Wrist, Wrist Joint
e0300469
Krinis, Spyros L L
31848a66-f5a2-416b-938b-255b5f0dab3f
Chadwell, Alix
c337930e-a6b5-43e3-8ca5-eed1d2d71340
Kenney, Laurence
83d42411-ccbe-4b21-828e-9abd9775e47d
Smit, Gerwin
478e5218-c0f4-4423-bd1d-f6a2549d7887
Krinis, Spyros L L
31848a66-f5a2-416b-938b-255b5f0dab3f
Chadwell, Alix
c337930e-a6b5-43e3-8ca5-eed1d2d71340
Kenney, Laurence
83d42411-ccbe-4b21-828e-9abd9775e47d
Smit, Gerwin
478e5218-c0f4-4423-bd1d-f6a2549d7887
Krinis, Spyros L L, Chadwell, Alix, Kenney, Laurence and Smit, Gerwin
(2024)
A quantitative comparison between the mHand Adapt passive adjustable hand prosthesis and its predecessor, the Delft Self-Grasping Hand.
PLoS ONE, 19 (3), , [e0300469].
(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300469).
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Delft Self-Grasping Hand (SGH) is an adjustable passive hand prosthesis that relies on wrist flexion to adjust the aperture of its grasp. The mechanism requires engagement of the contralateral hand meaning that hand is not available for other tasks. A commercialised version of this prosthesis, known as the mHand Adapt, includes a new release mechanism, which avoids the need to press a release button, and changes to the hand shape. This study is the first of its kind to compare two passive adjustable hand prostheses on the basis of quantitative scoring and contralateral hand involvement.
METHODS: 10 anatomically intact participants were asked to perform the Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure (SHAP) with the mHand. Functionality and contralateral hand involvement were recorded and compared against SGH data originating from a previous trial involving a nearly identical testing regime.
RESULTS: mHand exhibited higher functionality scores and less contralateral hand interaction time, especially during release-aiding interactions. Additionally, a wider range of tasks could be completed using the mHand than the SGH.
DISCUSSION: Geometric changes make the mHand more capable of manipulating smaller objects. The altered locking mechanism means some tasks can be performed without any contralateral hand involvement and a higher number of tasks do not require contralateral involvement when releasing. Some participants struggled with achieving a good initial grip due to the inability to tighten the grasp once already formed.
CONCLUSION: The mHand offers the user higher functionality scores with less contralateral hand interaction time and the ability to perform a wider range of tasks. However, there are some design trade-offs which may make it slightly harder to learn to use.
Text
journal.pone.0300469
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 3 February 2024
e-pub ahead of print date: 21 March 2024
Additional Information:
Copyright: © 2024 Krinis et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Keywords:
Artificial Limbs, Hand, Hand Strength, Humans, Learning, Wrist, Wrist Joint
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 493763
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/493763
ISSN: 1932-6203
PURE UUID: aff7e403-28c6-4cca-9857-46ccf9b309e9
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 12 Sep 2024 16:40
Last modified: 17 Sep 2024 02:06
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Spyros L L Krinis
Author:
Alix Chadwell
Author:
Laurence Kenney
Author:
Gerwin Smit
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics