Page 231 - Handbook of Biomechatronics

228 Georgios A. Bertos and Evangelos G. Papadopoulos

Researchers are trying to resolve practical issues of infections and bone
weakening that might happen in a few cases. Not only it can provide to
the upper-limb amputee an increased range of motion of the prosthesis
(see Fig. 19A and B), it can lead to superior control since via the
Osseoperception the amputees feel where the prosthesis is in space without
subconsciously.

3.4 EPP and Biomechatronic EPP
EPP as was described at Section 1.4.3 is a paradigm/direction that we have
lost over the last decades when prosthetic industry took the path of myoelec-
tric control. We have lost the integrated sensory integration that EPP offers
inherently. Biomechatronic EPP (Section 2.9) is a research effort trying to
fill in that gap, take out the disadvantages of traditional EPP (cables, harness,
and unesthetics) and keep the integrated pathway that tendons and neuro-
muscular structures in the EPP paradigm provide. Yes, there is surgery that
needs to be performed for Biomechatronic EPP but that might happen at the
time of amputation.

3.5 Discussion/Realignment
3.5.1 Back to Basics
If we look at the upper-limb prosthetics evolution, we will see that wars
have helped progress the state of the art. During World War I, cineplasty
was introduced and matured in Italy; during the World War II, EPP, and
cineplasty progressed in Germany and United States. During the wars in
Middle East with United States, there was substantial progress on TMR
which opened the window to many-DoF prosthetic arms.
It is now time, to get back to basics and reflect if we have met the needs of
people with amputations. Have we prioritized on their needs? Have we
made the process of giving a prosthesis to the amputee, a process that we
satisfy his/her needs? Have we defined what the local of practical “ideal”
with today’s technology is for that amputee?
The technocrats think that what they think will lead to higher usability but
(Lock et al., 2005) did not find high correlation between lower classification
error and higher usability results. In other words, what researchers think is the
“ideal” might not be and might not be usable by users, which is the “ideal.”
Therefore, we need to get back to basics and define what is “ideal.” It seems
that the interpretation of the “ideal” for each amputee is subjective and that is
the gap process debt that researchers owe to the users.