Comparison of outcomes at baseline, end of laboratory training (A), end of home use (B).

Comparing outcomes by control type at End of A / End of B (TR only).

Comparing outcomes by control type at End of A / End of B (TH only).

IntroductionEMG pattern recognition control (EMG-PR) is a promising option for control of upper limb prostheses with multiple degrees of freedom (DOF). The purposes of this...

Controls set up as of end of Part A.

Outcome measures.

List of measures and brief description.

Desire to receive a DEKA Arm at End of A and End of B* by configuration level (N = 18).

Comparison of outcomes at Baseline and End of B (EOB) by control type.

Outcomes across assessment time points by device type at Baseline and End of A / End of B.

Effect size calculations for tests that were significantly different at Baseline vs. End of A and Baseline vs. End of B.

Major categories and subcategories of coding iterations: Subject experience with EMG-PR and DEKA.

Characteristics of participants by amputation level.

EMG-PR controls to DEKA integration: Comparison of prototypes 1 and 2.

Outcomes across assessment time points.

Synopsis of prototype use, control configuration, major changes to controls configuration, repair episodes, training hours, prior study participation and controls experience.

Ease of Use subscales and item scores for participants who completed only Part A and those who completed Part A and Part B.

Characteristics of participants.

Characteristics of sample.

Satisfaction subscales and item scores for participants who completed only Part A and those who completed Part A and Part B.