Efficiency of voluntary opening hand and hook prosthetic devices: 24 years of development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative data on the mechanical performance of upper-limb prostheses are very important in prostheses development and selection. The primary goal of this study was to objectively evaluate the mechanical performance of adult-size voluntary opening (VO) prosthetic terminal devices and select the best tested device. A second goal was to see whether VO devices have improved in the last two decades. Nine devices (four hooks and five hands) were quantitatively tested (Hosmer model 5XA hook, Hosmer Sierra 2 Load VO hook, RSL Steeper Carbon Gripper, Otto Bock model 10A60 hook, Becker Imperial hand, Hosmer Sierra VO hand, Hosmer Soft VO hand, RSL Steeper VO hand, Otto Bock VO hand). We measured the pinch forces, activation forces, cable displacements, mass, and opening span and calculated the work and hysteresis. We compared the results with data from 1987. Hooks required lower activation forces and delivered higher pinch forces than hands. The activation forces of several devices were very high. The pinch forces of all tested hands were too low. The Hosmer model 5XA hook with three bands was the best tested hook. The Hosmer Sierra VO hand was the best tested hand. We found no improvements in VO devices compared with the data from 1987.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".