These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10149042)

  • 1. Current evaluation of hydraulics to replace the cable force transmission system for body-powered upper-limb prostheses.
    LeBlanc M
    Assist Technol; 1990; 2(3):101-7. PubMed ID: 10149042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Design and evaluation of two different finger concepts for body-powered prosthetic hand.
    Smit G; Plettenburg DH; van der Helm FC
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2013; 50(9):1253-66. PubMed ID: 24458965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Prosthetic use in adult upper limb amputees: a comparison of the body powered and electrically powered prostheses.
    Millstein SG; Heger H; Hunter GA
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 1986 Apr; 10(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 3725563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Fatigue-free operation of most body-powered prostheses not feasible for majority of users with trans-radial deficiency.
    Hichert M; Vardy AN; Plettenburg D
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2018 Feb; 42(1):84-92. PubMed ID: 28621577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An experimental apparatus to simulate body-powered prosthetic usage: Development and preliminary evaluation.
    Gao F; Rodriguez J; Kapp S
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2016 Jun; 40(3):404-8. PubMed ID: 25820641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of transradial body-powered prostheses using a robotic simulator.
    Ayub R; Villarreal D; Gregg RD; Gao F
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2017 Apr; 41(2):194-200. PubMed ID: 27469105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An Empirical Evaluation of Force Feedback in Body-Powered Prostheses.
    Brown JD; Kunz TS; Gardner D; Shelley MK; Davis AJ; Gillespie RB
    IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng; 2017 Mar; 25(3):215-226. PubMed ID: 27101614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Perception and control of low cable operation forces in voluntary closing body-powered upper-limb prostheses.
    Hichert M; Abbink DA; Vardy AN; van der Sluis CK; Janssen WGM; Brouwers MAH; Plettenburg DH
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(11):e0225263. PubMed ID: 31756222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical evaluation of the modular electromechanical lock actuator for above-elbow prostheses: a preliminary report.
    Cupo ME; Sheredos SJ
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 1994; 31(2):148-52. PubMed ID: 7965872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Controlling a multi-degree of freedom upper limb prosthesis using foot controls: user experience.
    Resnik L; Klinger SL; Etter K; Fantini C
    Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol; 2014 Jul; 9(4):318-29. PubMed ID: 23902465
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment.
    Schweitzer W; Thali MJ; Egger D
    J Neuroeng Rehabil; 2018 Jan; 15(1):1. PubMed ID: 29298708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Body schema and body awareness of amputees.
    Mayer A; Kudar K; Bretz K; Tihanyi J
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2008 Sep; 32(3):363-82. PubMed ID: 18677671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Prosthetic usage in major upper extremity amputations.
    Wright TW; Hagen AD; Wood MB
    J Hand Surg Am; 1995 Jul; 20(4):619-22. PubMed ID: 7594289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Is body powered operation of upper limb prostheses feasible for young limb deficient children?
    Shaperman J; Leblanc M; Setoguchi Y; McNeal DR
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 1995 Dec; 19(3):165-75. PubMed ID: 8927528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. High Cable Forces Deteriorate Pinch Force Control in Voluntary-Closing Body-Powered Prostheses.
    Hichert M; Abbink DA; Kyberd PJ; Plettenburg DH
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(1):e0169996. PubMed ID: 28099454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: Systematic literature review.
    Carey SL; Lura DJ; Highsmith MJ; ;
    J Rehabil Res Dev; 2015; 52(3):247-62. PubMed ID: 26230500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees.
    Dudkiewicz I; Gabrielov R; Seiv-Ner I; Zelig G; Heim M
    Disabil Rehabil; 2004 Jan; 26(1):60-3. PubMed ID: 14660200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Do users want to receive a DEKA Arm and why? Overall findings from the Veterans Affairs Study to optimize the DEKA Arm.
    Resnik L; Latlief G; Klinger SL; Sasson N; Walters LS
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2014 Dec; 38(6):456-66. PubMed ID: 24286806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Ipsilateral Scapular Cutaneous Anchor System: An alternative for the harness in body-powered upper-limb prostheses.
    Hichert M; Plettenburg DH
    Prosthet Orthot Int; 2018 Feb; 42(1):101-106. PubMed ID: 28318402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessing physical function in adult acquired major upper-limb amputees by combining the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Outcome Questionnaire and clinical examination.
    Ostlie K; Franklin RJ; Skjeldal OH; Skrondal A; Magnus P
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2011 Oct; 92(10):1636-45. PubMed ID: 21872841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.