0
Research Papers

Amputee Subject Testing Protocol, Results, and Analysis of a Powered Transtibial Prosthetic Device

[+] Author and Article Information
Jinming Sun

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Marquette University,
Milwaukee, WI 53233
e-mail: jinming.sun@marquette.edu

Jessica M. Fritz

Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Marquette University,
Milwaukee, WI 53233
e-mail: jessica.fritz@marquette.edu

David R. Del Toro

Department of Physical
Medicine and Rehabilitation,
Medical College of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee, WI 53226
e-mail: ddeltoro@mcw.edu

Philip A. Voglewede

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Marquette University,
Milwaukee, WI 53233
e-mail: philip.voglewede@marquette.edu

Stance phase is defined as the period when the foot has contact with the ground. In contrast, swing phase is defined as the period when the foot has no contact with the ground and thus in swing.

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received October 22, 2013; final manuscript received April 12, 2014; published online xx xx, xxxx. Assoc. Editor: Rita M. Patterson.

J. Med. Devices 8(4), 041007 (Aug 19, 2014) (6 pages) Paper No: MED-13-1265; doi: 10.1115/1.4027497 History: Received October 22, 2013; Revised April 12, 2014

A powered ankle-foot prothesis and its control system were previously designed and built. To evaluate this prosthesis, amputee subject testing was performed. The testing results are analyzed and compared between the powered prosthesis, passive prosthesis, and able-bodied gait. Qualitative comparison showed the prosthesis achieved the design objectives. During stance phase, active ankle moment was generated in the powered prosthesis before push-off to help the amputee walk more naturally. During swing phase, the powered prosthesis was able to move to natural position to achieve foot clearance. However, the prosthesis is slightly under powered compared with the able-bodied ankle.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Topics: Prostheses , Testing , Design
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The mechanism configuration of the designed prosthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Prosthetic device prototype

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Control algorithm to regulate the powered generated by the motor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The ankle angle comparison between the three trials of the powered prosthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The ankle moment comparison between the three trials of the powered prosthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

The ankle power comparison between the three trials of the powered prosthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The ankle angle comparison between the powered prosthesis, the natural leg and Winter's data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The ankle moment comparison between the powered prosthesis, the natural leg and Winter's data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The ankle power comparison between the powered prosthesis, the natural leg and the Winter's data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The ankle angle comparison between the powered prosthesis and the passive prosthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The ankle moment comparison between the powered prosthesis and the passive prosthesis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The ankle power comparison between the powered prosthesis and the passive prosthesis

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In