Most prosthetic limbs can autonomously move with dexterity, yet they are not perceived by the user as belonging to their own body. Robotic limbs can convey information about the environment with higher precision than biological limbs, but their actual performance is substantially limited by current technologies for the interfacing of the robotic devices with the body and for transferring motor and sensory information bidirectionally between the prosthesis and the user. In this Perspective, we argue that direct skeletal attachment of bionic devices via osseointegration, the amplification of neural signals by targeted muscle innervation, improved prosthesis control via implanted muscle sensors and advanced algorithms, and the provision of sensory feedback by means of electrodes implanted in peripheral nerves, should all be leveraged towards the creation of a new generation of high-performance bionic limbs. These technologies have been clinically tested in humans, and alongside mechanical redesigns and adequate rehabilitation training should facilitate the wider clinical use of bionic limbs.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation Open Access 07 May 2022
Survey of transfemoral amputee experience and priorities for the user-centered design of powered robotic transfemoral prostheses
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation Open Access 04 December 2021
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Cordella, F. et al. Literature review on needs of upper limb prosthesis users. Front. Neurosci. 10, 209 (2016).
Webster, J. B. et al. Prosthetic fitting, use, and satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: a prospective study. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 49, 1493–1504 (2012).
Biddiss, E., Beaton, D. & Chau, T. Consumer design priorities for upper limb prosthetics. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 2, 346–357 (2007).
Kyberd, P. J. & Hill, W. Survey of upper limb prosthesis users in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 35, 234–241 (2011).
Pylatiuk, C., Schulz, S. & Döderlein, L. Results of an internet survey of myoelectric prosthetic hand users. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 31, 362–370 (2007).
Jang, C. H. et al. A survey on activities of daily living and occupations of upper extremity amputees. Ann. Rehabil. Med. 35, 907–921 (2011).
Fogelberg, D. J., Allyn, K. J., Smersh, M. & Maitland, M. E. What people want in a prosthetic foot. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 28, 145–151 (2016).
Villa, C. et al. Cross-slope and level walking strategies during swing in individuals with lower limb amputation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 98, 1149–1157 (2017).
Meulenbelt, H., Geertzen, J., Jonkman, M. & Dijkstra, P. Skin problems of the stump in lower limb amputees: 1. A clinical study. Acta Derm. Venereol. 91, 173–177 (2011).
The Amputee Statistical Database for the United Kingdom 2004/05 (NHS Scotland Information Services Division, 2005); http://www.limbless-statistics.org
Dillingham, T. R., Pezzin, L. E., MacKenzie, E. J. & Burgess, A. R. Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: a long-term outcome study. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 80, 563–571 (2001).
Koc, E. et al. Skin problems in amputees: a descriptive study. Int. J. Dermatol. 47, 463–466 (2008).
Ding, Z., Jarvis, H. L., Bennett, A. N., Baker, R. & Bull, A. M. Higher knee contact forces might underlie increased osteoarthritis rates in high functioning amputees: a pilot study. J. Orthop. Res. 39, 850–860 (2021).
Daly, W., Voo, L., Rosenbaum-Chou, T., Arabian, A. & Boone, D. Socket pressure and discomfort in upper-limb prostheses: a preliminary study. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 26, 99–106 (2014).
Biddiss, E. A. & Chau, T. T. Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 31, 236–257 (2007).
Vujaklija, I., Farina, D. & Aszmann, O. New developments in prosthetic arm systems. Orthop. Res. Rev. 8, 31–39 (2016).
Peerdeman, B. et al. Myoelectric forearm prostheses: state of the art from a user-centered perspective. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 48, 719–737 (2011).
Belter, J. T., Segil, J. L., Dollar, A. M. & Weir, R. F. Mechanical design and performance specifications of anthropomorphic prosthetic hands: a review. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 50, 599–618 (2013).
Farina, D. & Aszmann, O. Bionic limbs: clinical reality and academic promises. Sci. Transl. Med. 6, 257ps12 (2014).
Ning, J., Dosen, S., Muller, K.-R. & Farina, D. Myoelectric control of artificial limbs—is there a need to change focus? IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 29, 152–150 (2012).
Castellini, C., Bongers, R. M., Nowak, M. & van der Sluis, C. K. Upper-limb prosthetic myocontrol: two recommendations. Front. Neurosci. 9, 496 (2016).
Bicchi, A. & Sorrentino, R. Dexterous manipulation through rolling. In Proc. 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 452–457 (IEEE, 1995).
Okamura, A. M., Smaby, N. & Cutkosky, M. R. An overview of dexterous manipulation. In Proc. 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 255–262 (IEEE, 2000).
Shimoga, K. B. Robot grasp synthesis algorithms: a survey. Int. J. Rob. Res. 15, 230–266 (1996).
Bicchi, A. Hands for dexterous manipulation and robust grasping: a difficult road toward simplicity. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 16, 652–662 (2000).
Fishel, J. A. & Loeb, G. E. Sensing tactile microvibrations with the BioTac—comparison with human sensitivity. In 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) 1122–1127 (IEEE, 2012).
Sewell, P., Noroozi, S., Vinney, J. & Andrews, S. Developments in the trans-tibial prosthetic socket fitting process: a review of past and present research. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 24, 97–107 (2000).
Astrom, I. & Stenstrom, A. Effect on gait and socket comfort in unilateral trans-tibial amputees after exchange to a polyurethane concept. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 28, 28–36 (2004).
Ortiz-Catalan, M., Brånemark, R., Håkansson, B. & Delbeke, J. On the viability of implantable electrodes for the natural control of artificial limbs: review and discussion. Biomed. Eng. Online 11, 33 (2012).
Zhou, P. et al. Decoding a new neural–machine interface for control of artificial limbs. J. Neurophysiol. 98, 2974–2982 (2007).
Scott, R. N. & Parker, P. A. Myoelectric prostheses: state of the art. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 12, 143–151 (1988).
Lake, C. The evolution of upper limb prosthetic socket design. JPO J. Prosthet. Orthot. 20, 85–92 (2008).
Potter, M. B. K. et al. Heterotopic ossification following combat-related trauma. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 92, 74–89 (2010).
Brånemark, R., Brånemark, P.-I., Rydevik, B. & Myers, R. R. Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 38, 175–181 (2001).
Shelton, T. J., Beck, P. J., Bloebaum, R. D. & Bachus, K. N. Percutaneous osseointegrated prostheses for amputees: limb compensation in a 12-month ovine model. J. Biomech. 44, 2601–2606 (2011).
Jönsson, S., Caine-Winterberger, K. & Brånemark, R. Osseointegration amputation prostheses on the upper limbs: methods, prosthetics and rehabilitation. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 35, 190–200 (2011).
Hagberg, K., Branemark, R., Gunterberg, B. & Rydevik, B. Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients at 2-year follow-up. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 32, 29–41 (2008).
Hagberg, K., Häggström, E., Uden, M. & Brånemark, R. Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: hip range of motion and sitting comfort. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 29, 153–163 (2005).
Pitkin, M. Design features of implants for direct skeletal attachment of limb prostheses. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 101, 3339–3348 (2013).
Brånemark, R. P., Hagberg, K., Kulbacka-Ortiz, K., Berlin, Ö. & Rydevik, B. Osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: a prospective five-year follow-up of patient-reported outcomes and complications. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 27, E743–E751 (2019).
Al Muderis, M., Khemka, A., Lord, S. J., Van de Meent, H. & Frölke, J. P. M. Safety of osseointegrated implants for transfemoral amputees. J. Bone Joint. Surg. 98, 900–909 (2016).
Ortiz-Catalan, M., Hakansson, B. & Branemark, R. An osseointegrated human-machine gateway for long-term sensory feedback and motor control of artificial limbs. Sci. Transl. Med. 6, 257re6 (2014).
Mastinu, E., Doguet, P., Botquin, Y., Hakansson, B. & Ortiz-Catalan, M. Embedded system for prosthetic control using implanted neuromuscular interfaces accessed via an osseointegrated implant. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 11, 867–877 (2017).
Ortiz-Catalan, M., Mastinu, E., Sassu, P., Aszmann, O. & Brånemark, R. Self-contained neuromusculoskeletal arm prostheses. New Engl. J. Med. 382, 1732–1738 (2020).
Matthews, D. J. et al. UK trial of the osseointegrated prosthesis for the rehabilitation for amputees: 1995–2018. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 43, 112–122 (2019).
Resnik, L., Benz, H., Borgia, M. & Clark, M. A. Patient perspectives on osseointegration: a national survey of veterans with upper limb amputation. PM&R 11, 1261–1271 (2019).
Van Nes, C. P. Rotation-plasty for congenital defects of the femur. J. Bone Joint. Surg. Br. 32-B, 12–16 (1950).
Azocar, A. F. et al. Design and clinical implementation of an open-source bionic leg. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 4, 941–953 (2020).
Goldfarb, M., Lawson, B. E. & Shultz, A. H. Realizing the promise of robotic leg prostheses. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 225 (2013).
Grimes, D. L., Flowers, W. C. & Donath, M. Feasibility of an active control scheme for above knee prostheses. J. Biomech. Eng. 99, 215–221 (1977).
Sup, F., Bohara, A. & Goldfarb, M. Design and control of a powered transfemoral prosthesis. Int. J. Rob. Res. 27, 263–273 (2008).
Martinez-Villalpando, E. C. & Herr, H. Agonist–antagonist active knee prosthesis: a preliminary study in level-ground walking. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 46, 361 (2009).
Simon, A. M., Hargrove, L. J., Lock, B. A. & Kuiken, T. A. Target achievement control test: evaluating real-time myoelectric pattern-recognition control of multifunctional upper-limb prostheses. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 48, 619–627 (2011).
Young, A. J., Simon, A. M., Fey, N. P. & Hargrove, L. J. Intent recognition in a powered lower limb prosthesis using time history information. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 42, 631–641 (2014).
Lenzi, T., Sensinger, J., Lipsey, J., Hargrove, L. & Kuiken, T. Design and preliminary testing of the RIC hybrid knee prosthesis. In 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) 1683–1686 (IEEE, 2015).
Lawson, B. E., Varol, H. A., Huff, A., Erdemir, E. & Goldfarb, M. Control of stair ascent and descent with a powered transfemoral prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 21, 466–473 (2013).
Au, S., Berniker, M. & Herr, H. Powered ankle-foot prosthesis to assist level-ground and stair-descent gaits. Neural Netw. 21, 654–666 (2008).
Varol, H. A., Sup, F. & Goldfarb, M. Multiclass real-time intent recognition of a powered lower limb prosthesis. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 57, 542–551 (2010).
Huang, H. et al. Continuous locomotion-mode identification for prosthetic legs based on neuromuscular–mechanical fusion. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58, 2867–2875 (2011).
Weir, R. F., Heckathorne, C. W. & Childress, D. S. Cineplasty as a control input for externally powered prosthetic components. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 38, 357–363 (2001).
Brückner, L. Sauerbruch-Lebsche-Vanghetti cineplasty: the surgical procedure. Orthop. Traumatol. 1, 90–99 (1992).
Kruit, J. & Cool, J. C. Body-powered hand prosthesis with low operating power for children. J. Med. Eng. Technol. 13, 129–133 (1989).
Doeringer, J. A. & Hogan, N. Performance of above elbow body-powered prostheses in visually guided unconstrained motion tasks. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 42, 621–631 (1995).
Carey, S. L., Lura, D. J. & Highsmith, M. J. Differences in myoelectric and body-powered upper-limb prostheses: systematic literature review. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 52, 247–262 (2015).
Schweitzer, W., Thali, M. J. & Egger, D. Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 15, 1 (2018).
Riener, R. The Cybathlon promotes the development of assistive technology for people with physical disabilities. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 13, 49 (2016).
Hargrove, L. J., Simon, A. M., Lipschutz, R., Finucane, S. B. & Kuiken, T. A. Non-weight-bearing neural control of a powered transfemoral prosthesis. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 10, 62 (2013).
Ha, K. H., Varol, H. A. & Goldfarb, M. Volitional control of a prosthetic knee using surface electromyography. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58, 144–151 (2011).
Hargrove, L. J. et al. Intuitive control of a powered prosthetic leg during ambulation. JAMA 313, 2244–2252 (2015).
Peng, J., Fey, N. P., Kuiken, T. A. & Hargrove, L. J. Anticipatory kinematics and muscle activity preceding transitions from level-ground walking to stair ascent and descent. J. Biomech. 49, 528–536 (2016).
Zhang, F., Liu, M. & Huang, H. Effects of locomotion mode recognition errors on volitional control of powered above-knee prostheses. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 23, 64–72 (2015).
Khademi, G., Mohammadi, H. & Simon, D. Gradient-based multi-objective feature selection for gait mode recognition of transfemoral amputees. Sensors 19, 253 (2019).
Spanias, J. A., Simon, A. M., Finucane, S. B., Perreault, E. J. & Hargrove, L. J. Online adaptive neural control of a robotic lower limb prosthesis. J. Neural Eng. 15, 016015 (2018).
Au, S. K., Bonato, P. & Herr, H. An EMG-position controlled system for an active ankle-foot prosthesis: an initial experimental study. In 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, ICORR 2005 375–379 (IEEE, 2005).
Zhang, F., Liu, M. & Huang, H. Investigation of timing to switch control mode in powered knee prostheses during task transitions. PLoS ONE 10, e0133965 (2015).
Stevens, P. M. & Highsmith, M. J. Myoelectric and body power, design options for upper-limb prostheses. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 29, P1–P3 (2017).
Parker, P., Englehart, K. & Hudgins, B. Myoelectric signal processing for control of powered limb prostheses. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 16, 541–548 (2006).
Hudgins, B., Parker, P. & Scott, R. N. A new strategy for multifunction myoelectric control. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 40, 82–94 (1993).
Graupe, D. & Cline, W. K. Functional separation of EMG signals via ARMA identification methods for prosthesis control purposes. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 5, 252–259 (1975).
Englehart, K., Hudgin, B. & Parker, P. A. A wavelet-based continuous classification scheme for multifunction myoelectric control. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 48, 302–311 (2001).
Hargrove, L. J., Guanglin, L., Englehart, K. B. & Hudgins, B. S. Principal components analysis preprocessing for improved classification accuracies in pattern-recognition-based myoelectric control. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 56, 1407–1414 (2009).
Englehart, K. & Hudgins, B. A robust, real-time control scheme for multifunction myoelectric control. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 50, 848–854 (2003).
Scheme, E. & Englehart, K. Electromyogram pattern recognition for control of powered upper-limb prostheses: state of the art and challenges for clinical use. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 48, 643–660 (2011).
Ohnishi, K., Weir, R. F. & Kuiken, T. A. Neural machine interfaces for controlling multifunctional powered upper-limb prostheses. Expert Rev. Med. Dev. 4, 43–53 (2007).
Light, C. M. & Chappell, P. H. Development of a lightweight and adaptable multiple-axis hand prosthesis. Med. Eng. Phys. 22, 679–684 (2000).
Simon, A. M., Lock, B. A. & Stubblefield, K. A. Patient training for functional use of pattern recognition-controlled prostheses. J. Prosthet. Orthot. 24, 56–64 (2012).
Hargrove, L., Englehart, K. & Hudgins, B. The effect of electrode displacements on pattern recognition based myoelectric control. In 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2203–2206 (IEEE, 2006).
Kuiken, T., Miller, L., Turner, K. & Hargrove, L. A comparison of pattern recognition control and direct control of a multiple degree-of-freedom transradial prosthesis. IEEE J. Transl. Eng. Heal. Med. 4, 2100508 (2016).
Cipriani, C., Segil, J. L., Birdwell, J. A. & Weir, R. F. Dexterous control of a prosthetic hand using fine-wire intramuscular electrodes in targeted extrinsic muscles. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22, 828–836 (2014).
Hahne, J. M., Farina, D., Jiang, N. & Liebetanz, D. A novel percutaneous electrode implant for improving robustness in advanced myoelectric control. Front. Neurosci. 10, 114 (2016).
Pasquina, P. F. et al. First-in-man demonstration of a fully implanted myoelectric sensors system to control an advanced electromechanical prosthetic hand. J. Neurosci. Methods 244, 85–93 (2015).
Weir, R. F. et al. Implantable myoelectric sensors (IMESs) for intramuscular electromyogram recording. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 56, 159–171 (2009).
Lewis, S. et al. Fully implantable multi-channel measurement system for acquisition of muscle activity. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 62, 1972–1981 (2013).
McDonnall, S., Hiatt, S., Crofts, B., Smith, C. & Merrill, D. Development of a wireless multichannel myoelectric implant for prosthesis control. In Proc. Myoelectric Control and Upper Limb Prosthesis Symposium (MEC 2017) 21 (2017).
Graczyk, E. L., Resnik, L., Schiefer, M. A., Schmitt, M. S. & Tyler, D. J. Home use of a neural-connected sensory prosthesis provides the functional and psychosocial experience of having a hand again. Sci. Rep. 8, 9866 (2018).
Weir, R. F., Troyk, P. R., DeMichele, G., Kuiken, T. & Ku, T. Implantable myoelectric sensors (IMES) for upper-extremity prosthesis control—preliminary work. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 25, 1562–1565 (2003).
Merrill, D. R., Lockhart, J., Troyk, P. R., Weir, R. F. & Hankin, D. L. Development of an implantable myoelectric sensor for advanced prosthesis control. Artif. Organs 35, 249–252 (2011).
Baker, J. J., Scheme, E., Englehart, K., Hutchinson, D. T. & Greger, B. Continuous detection and decoding of dexterous finger flexions with implantable myoelectric sensors. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18, 424–432 (2010).
Kristjansson, K. et al. in Converging Clinical and Engineering Research on Neurorehabilitation II (eds Ibáñez, J. et al.) 571–574 (Springer, 2017).
Salminger, S. Long-term implant of intramuscular sensors and nerve transfers for wireless control of robotic arms in above-elbow amputees. Sci. Robot. 4, eaaw6306 (2019).
Jezernik, S., Grill, W. W. & Sinkjaer, T. Neural network classification of nerve activity recorded in a mixed nerve. Neurol. Res. 23, 429–434 (2001).
Haugland, M. K. & Sinkjaer, T. Cutaneous whole nerve recordings used for correction of footdrop in hemiplegic man. IEEE Trans. Rehabil. Eng. 3, 307–317 (1995).
Hoffer, J. & Loeb, G. Implantable electrical and mechanical interfaces with nerve and muscle. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 8, 351–360 (1980).
Navarro, X. et al. A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J. Peripher. Nerv. Syst. 10, 229–258 (2005).
Micera, S. et al. Decoding of grasping information from neural signals recorded using peripheral intrafascicular interfaces. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 8, 53 (2011).
Raspopović, S., Capogrosso, M., Navarro, X. & Micera, S. Finite element and biophysics modelling of intraneural transversal electrodes: influence of active site shape. In 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 1678–1681 (IEEE, 2010).
Kagan, Z. B. et al. Linear methods for reducing EMG contamination in peripheral nerve motor decodes. In 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) 3422–3425 (IEEE, 2016).
Davis, T. S. et al. Restoring motor control and sensory feedback in people with upper extremity amputations using arrays of 96 microelectrodes implanted in the median and ulnar nerves. J. Neural Eng. 13, 036001 (2016).
Noce, E. et al. EMG and ENG-envelope pattern recognition for prosthetic hand control. J. Neurosci. Methods 311, 38–46 (2019).
Petrini, F. M. et al. Microneurography as a tool to develop decoding algorithms for peripheral neuro-controlled hand prostheses. Biomed. Eng. Online 18, 44 (2019).
Cracchiolo, M. et al. Decoding of grasping tasks from intraneural recordings in trans-radial amputee. J. Neural Eng. 17, 026034 (2020).
Rossini, P. M. et al. Double nerve intraneural interface implant on a human amputee for robotic hand control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 121, 777–783 (2010).
Wurth, S. et al. Long-term usability and bio-integration of polyimide-based intra-neural stimulating electrodes. Biomaterials 122, 114–129 (2017).
Kuiken, T. A. et al. Targeted muscle reinnervation for real-time myoelectric control of multifunction artificial arms. JAMA 301, 619–628 (2009).
Dumanian, G. A. et al. Targeted reinnervation for transhumeral amputees: current surgical technique and update on results. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 124, 863–869 (2009).
Kuiken, T. A., Dumanian, G. A., Lipschutz, R. D., Miller, L. A. & Stubblefield, K. A. The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 28, 245–253 (2004).
Farina, D. et al. Man/machine interface based on the discharge timings of spinal motor neurons after targeted muscle reinnervation. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 0025 (2017).
Aszmann, O. C. et al. Bionic reconstruction to restore hand function after brachial plexus injury: a case series of three patients. Lancet 385, 2183–2189 (2015).
Muceli, S. et al. Decoding motor neuron activity from epimysial thin-film electrode recordings following targeted muscle reinnervation. J. Neural Eng. 16, 016010 (2019).
Bergmeister, K. D. et al. Peripheral nerve transfers induce target muscle hyper-reinnervation and muscle fiber type switch. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau2956 (2019).
Farina, D. et al. Noninvasive, accurate assessment of the behavior of representative populations of motor units in targeted reinnervated muscles. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22, 810–819 (2014).
Kapelner, T. et al. Motor unit characteristics after targeted muscle reinnervation. PLoS ONE 11, e0149772 (2016).
Kapelner, T. et al. Classification of motor unit activity following targeted muscle reinnervation. In 2015 7th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER) 652–654 (IEEE, 2015).
Bergmeister, K. D. et al. Broadband prosthetic interfaces: combining nerve transfers and implantable multichannel EMG technology to decode spinal motor neuron activity. Front. Neurosci. 11, 421 (2017).
Ortiz-Catalan, M. Neuroengineering: deciphering neural drive. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 0034 (2017).
Chen, C. et al. Prediction of finger kinematics from discharge timings of motor units: implications for intuitive control of myoelectric prostheses. J. Neural Eng. 16, 026005 (2019).
Urbanchek, M. G. et al. Development of a regenerative peripheral nerve interface for control of a neuroprosthetic limb. BioMed. Res. Int. 2016, 1–8 (2016).
Frost, C. M. et al. Regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces for real-time, proportional control of a neuroprosthetic hand. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 15, 108 (2018).
Vu, P. P. et al. Closed-loop continuous hand control via chronic recording of regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 26, 515–526 (2018).
Vu, P. P. et al. A regenerative peripheral nerve interface allows real-time control of an artificial hand in upper limb amputees. Sci. Transl. Med. 12, eaay2857 (2020).
Collinger, J. L. et al. High-performance neuroprosthetic control by an individual with tetraplegia. Lancet 381, 557–564 (2013).
Wodlinger, B. et al. Ten-dimensional anthropomorphic arm control in a human brain–machine interface: difficulties, solutions, and limitations. J. Neural Eng. 12, 016011 (2015).
Courtine, G., Micera, S., DiGiovanna, J. & del R Millán, J. Brain–machine interface: closer to therapeutic reality? Lancet 381, 515–517 (2013).
Lebedev, M. A. & Nicolelis, M. A. L. Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends Neurosci. 29, 536–546 (2006).
Rohm, M. et al. Hybrid brain–computer interfaces and hybrid neuroprostheses for restoration of upper limb functions in individuals with high-level spinal cord injury. Artif. Intell. Med. 59, 133–142 (2013).
Ison, M., Vujaklija, I., Whitsell, B., Farina, D. & Artemiadis, P. High-density electromyography and motor skill learning for robust long-term control of a 7-DoF robot arm. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 24, 424–433 (2016).
Makin, T. R., de Vignemont, F. & Faisal, A. A. Neurocognitive barriers to the embodiment of technology. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 0014 (2017).
Tyler, D. J. Neural interfaces for somatosensory feedback. Curr. Opin. Neurol. 28, 574–581 (2015).
Jiang, N., Rehbaum, H., Vujaklija, I., Graimann, B. & Farina, D. Intuitive, online, simultaneous, and proportional myoelectric control over two degrees-of-freedom in upper limb amputees. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22, 501–510 (2014).
Amsuess, S. et al. Context-dependent upper limb prosthesis control for natural and robust use. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 24, 744–753 (2016).
Smith, L. H., Kuiken, T. A. & Hargrove, L. J. Real-time simultaneous myoelectric control by transradial amputees using linear and probability-weighted regression. In 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) 1119–1123 (IEEE, 2015).
Hahne, J. M., Schweisfurth, M. A., Koppe, M. & Farina, D. Simultaneous control of multiple functions of bionic hand prostheses: performance and robustness in end users. Sci. Robot. 3, eaat3630 (2018).
Vujaklija, I. et al. Online mapping of EMG signals into kinematics by autoencoding. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 15, 21 (2018).
Hahne, J. M., Markovic, M. & Farina, D. User adaptation in myoelectric man-machine interfaces. Sci. Rep. 7, 4437 (2017).
Sartori, M., Llyod, D. G. & Farina, D. Neural data-driven musculoskeletal modeling for personalized neurorehabilitation technologies. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 63, 879–893 (2016).
Sartori, M., Farina, D. & Lloyd, D. G. Hybrid neuromusculoskeletal modeling to best track joint moments using a balance between muscle excitations derived from electromyograms and optimization. J. Biomech. 47, 3613–3621 (2014).
Durandau, G., Farina, D. & Sartori, M. Robust real-time musculoskeletal modeling driven by electromyograms. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 65, 556–564 (2018).
Crouch, D. L. & Huang, H. Lumped-parameter electromyogram-driven musculoskeletal hand model: a potential platform for real-time prosthesis control. J. Biomech. 49, 3901–3907 (2016).
Crouch, D. L. & Huang, H. Musculoskeletal model-based control interface mimics physiologic hand dynamics during path tracing task. J. Neural Eng. 14, 036008 (2017).
Sartori, M., Durandau, G., Došen, S. & Farina, D. Robust simultaneous myoelectric control of multiple degrees of freedom in wrist-hand prostheses by real-time neuromusculoskeletal modeling. J. Neural Eng. 15, 066026 (2018).
Sartori, M., Reggiani, M., Farina, D. & Lloyd, D. G. EMG-driven forward-dynamic estimation of muscle force and joint moment about multiple degrees of freedom in the human lower extremity. PLoS ONE 7, e52618 (2012).
Sartori, M., van de Riet, J. & Farina, D. Estimation of phantom arm mechanics about four degrees of freedom after targeted muscle reinnervation. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 1, 58–64 (2019).
Young, A. J., Simon, A. M. & Hargrove, L. J. A training method for locomotion mode prediction using powered lower limb prostheses. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 22, 671–677 (2014).
Simon, A. M. et al. Configuring a powered knee and ankle prosthesis for transfemoral amputees within five specific ambulation modes. PLoS ONE 9, e99387 (2014).
Huang, H., Kuiken, T. A. & Lipschutz, R. D. A strategy for identifying locomotion modes using surface electromyography. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 56, 65–73 (2009).
Wang, J., Kannape, O. A. & Herr, H. M. Proportional EMG control of ankle plantar flexion in a powered transtibial prosthesis. In 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR) 1–5 (IEEE, 2013).
Spanias, J. A., Perreault, E. J. & Hargrove, L. J. Detection of and compensation for EMG disturbances for powered lower limb prosthesis control. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 24, 226–234 (2016).
Scheme, E., Fougner, A., Stavdahl, Ø., Chan, A. D. C. & Englehart, K. Examining the adverse effects of limb position on pattern recognition based myoelectric control. In 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 6337–6340 (IEEE, 2010).
Scheme, E. J., Englehart, K. B. & Hudgins, B. S. Selective classification for improved robustness of myoelectric control under nonideal conditions. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58, 1698–1705 (2011).
Sensinger, J. W., Lock, B. A. & Kuiken, T. A. Adaptive pattern recognition of myoelectric signals: exploration of conceptual framework and practical algorithms. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 17, 270–278 (2009).
Zhang, F. & Huang, H. Source selection for real-time user intent recognition toward volitional control of artificial legs. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 17, 907–914 (2013).
Hahne, J. M., Dahne, S., Hwang, H.-J., Muller, K.-R. & Parra, L. C. Concurrent adaptation of human and machine improves simultaneous and proportional myoelectric control. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 23, 618–627 (2015).
Yeung, D., Farina, D. & Vujaklija, I. Directional forgetting for stable co-adaptation in myoelectric control. Sensors 19, 2203 (2019).
Edwards, A. L. et al. Application of real-time machine learning to myoelectric prosthesis control: a case series in adaptive switching. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 40, 573–581 (2016).
Spanias, J. A., Simon, A. M., Perreault, E. J. & Hargrove, L. J. Preliminary results for an adaptive pattern recognition system for novel users using a powered lower limb prosthesis. In 2016 38th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) 5083–5086 (IEEE, 2016).
Du, L., Zhang, F., He, H. & Huang, H. Improving the performance of a neural-machine interface for prosthetic legs using adaptive pattern classifiers. In Proc. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) 1571–1574 (IEEE, 2013).
Zhuang, K. Z. et al. Shared human–robot proportional control of a dexterous myoelectric prosthesis. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 400–411 (2019).
Volkmar, R., Dosen, S., Gonzalez-Vargas, J., Baum, M. & Markovic, M. Improving bimanual interaction with a prosthesis using semi-autonomous control. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 16, 140 (2019).
Bensmaia, S. J., Tyler, D. J. & Micera, S. Restoration of sensory information via bionic hands. Nat. Biomed. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-020-00630-8 (2020).
Berniker, M. & Kording, K. Bayesian approaches to sensory integration for motor control. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2, 419–428 (2011).
Witteveen, H. J., Rietman, H. S. & Veltink, P. H. Vibrotactile grasping force and hand aperture feedback for myoelectric forearm prosthesis users. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 39, 204–212 (2015).
Dosen, S., Ninu, A., Yakimovich, T., Dietl, H. & Farina, D. A novel method to generate amplitude-frequency modulated vibrotactile stimulation. IEEE Trans. Haptics 9, 3–12 (2016).
Antfolk, C., Balkenius, C., Lundborg, G., Rosen, B. & Sebelius, F. A tactile display system for hand prostheses to discriminate pressure and individual finger localization. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 30, 355–359 (2010).
Antfolk, C. et al. Artificial redirection of sensation from prosthetic fingers to the phantom hand map on transradial amputees: vibrotactile versus mechanotactile sensory feedback. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 21, 112–120 (2013).
Bark, K., Wheeler, J., Lee, G., Savall, J. & Cutkosky, M. A wearable skin stretch device for haptic feedback. In World Haptics 2009—3rd Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems 464–469 (IEEE, 2009).
Wheeler, J., Bark, K., Savall, J. & Cutkosky, M. Investigation of rotational skin stretch for proprioceptive feedback with application to myoelectric systems. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 18, 58–66 (2010).
Patterson, P. E. & Katz, J. A. Design and evaluation of a sensory feedback system that provides grasping pressure in a myoelectric hand. J. Rehabil. Res. Dev. 29, 1–8 (1992).
Štrbac, M. et al. Integrated and flexible multichannel interface for electrotactile stimulation. J. Neural Eng. 13, 046014 (2016).
Patel, G. K., Dosen, S., Castellini, C. & Farina, D. Multichannel electrotactile feedback for simultaneous and proportional myoelectric control. J. Neural Eng. 13, 056015 (2016).
Scott, R. N., Brittain, R. H., Caldwell, R. R., Cameron, A. B. & Dunfield, V. A. Sensory-feedback system compatible with myoelectric control. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 18, 65–69 (1980).
D’Anna, E. et al. A somatotopic bidirectional hand prosthesis with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation based sensory feedback. Sci. Rep. 7, 10930 (2017).
Li, M. et al. Discrimination and recognition of phantom finger sensation through transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Front. Neurosci. 12, 283 (2018).
Vargas, L. et al. Object stiffness recognition using haptic feedback delivered through transcutaneous proximal nerve stimulation. J. Neural Eng. 17, 016002 (2019).
Zollo, L. et al. Restoring tactile sensations via neural interfaces for real-time force-and-slippage closed-loop control of bionic hands. Sci. Robot. 4, eaau9924 (2019).
Jorgovanovic, N., Dosen, S., Djozic, D. J., Krajoski, G. & Farina, D. Virtual grasping: closed-loop force control using electrotactile feedback. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2014, 120357 (2014).
Saunders, I. & Vijayakumar, S. The role of feed-forward and feedback processes for closed-loop prosthesis control. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 8, 60 (2011).
Schweisfurth, M. A. et al. Electrotactile EMG feedback improves the control of prosthesis grasping force. J. Neural Eng. 13, 056010 (2016).
Marasco, P. D., Schultz, A. E. & Kuiken, T. A. Sensory capacity of reinnervated skin after redirection of amputated upper limb nerves to the chest. Brain 132, 1441–1448 (2009).
Kuiken, T. A. et al. Targeted reinnervation for enhanced prosthetic arm function in a woman with a proximal amputation: a case study. Lancet 369, 371–380 (2007).
Marasco, P. D., Kim, K., Colgate, J. E., Peshkin, M. A. & Kuiken, T. A. Robotic touch shifts perception of embodiment to a prosthesis in targeted reinnervation amputees. Brain 134, 747–758 (2011).
Srinivasan, S. S. & Herr, H. M. A cutaneous mechanoneural interface for neuroprosthetic feedback. Nat. Biomed. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-020-00669-7 (2021).
Čvančara, P. et al. Stability of flexible thin-film metallization stimulation electrodes: analysis of explants after first-in-human study and improvement of in vivo performance. J. Neural Eng. 17, 046006 (2020).
Raspopovic, S. et al. Restoring natural sensory feedback in real-time bidirectional hand prostheses. Sci. Transl. Med. 6, 222ra19 (2014).
Tan, D. W. et al. A neural interface provides long-term stable natural touch perception. Sci. Transl. Med. 6, 257ra138 (2014).
Mastinu, E. et al. Neural feedback strategies to improve grasping coordination in neuromusculoskeletal prostheses. Sci. Rep. 10, 11793 (2020).
Oddo, C. M. et al. Intraneural stimulation elicits discrimination of textural features by artificial fingertip in intact and amputee humans. eLife 5, 167–174 (2016).
Petrini, F. M. et al. Six-month assessment of a hand prosthesis with intraneural tactile feedback. Ann. Neurol. 85, 137–154 (2018).
Valle, G. et al. Biomimetic intraneural sensory feedback enhances sensation naturalness, tactile sensitivity, and manual dexterity in a bidirectional prosthesis. Neuron 100, 37–45.e7 (2018).
Risso, G. et al. Optimal integration of intraneural somatosensory feedback with visual information: a single-case study. Sci. Rep. 9, 7916 (2019).
D’Anna, E. et al. A closed-loop hand prosthesis with simultaneous intraneural tactile and position feedback. Sci. Robot. 4, eaau8892 (2019).
Petrini, F. M. et al. Sensory feedback restoration in leg amputees improves walking speed, metabolic cost and phantom pain. Nat. Med. 25, 1356–1363 (2019).
Chandrasekaran, S. et al. Sensory restoration by epidural stimulation of the lateral spinal cord in upper-limb amputees. eLife 9, e54349 (2020).
Klaes, C. et al. A cognitive neuroprosthetic that uses cortical stimulation for somatosensory feedback. J. Neural Eng. 11, 056024 (2014).
May, T. et al. Detection of optogenetic stimulation in somatosensory cortex by non-human primates—towards artificial tactile sensation. PLoS ONE 9, e114529 (2014).
Anderson, H. E. & Weir, R. F. ff. On the development of optical peripheral nerve interfaces. Neural Regen. Res. 14, 425–436 (2019).
Fontaine, A. K. et al. Optical vagus nerve modulation of heart and respiration via heart-injected retrograde AAV. Sci. Rep. 11, 3664 (2021).
Fontaine, A. K. et al. Optogenetic stimulation of cholinergic fibers for the modulation of insulin and glycemia. Sci. Rep. 11, 3670 (2021).
Fontaine, A. K., Gibson, E. A., Caldwell, J. H. & Weir, R. F. Optical read-out of neural activity in mammalian peripheral axons: calcium signaling at nodes of Ranvier. Sci. Rep. 7, 4744 (2017).
De Nunzio, A. M. et al. Tactile feedback is an effective instrument for the training of grasping with a prosthesis at low- and medium-force levels. Exp. Brain Res. 235, 2457–2559 (2017).
Strbac, M. et al. Short- and long-term learning of feedforward control of a myoelectric prosthesis with sensory feedback by amputees. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 25, 2133–2145 (2017).
Mulvey, M. R., Fawkner, H. J., Radford, H. E. & Johnson, M. I. Perceptual embodiment of prosthetic limbs by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Neuromodulation 15, 42–47 (2012).
Johnson, S. S. & Mansfield, E. Prosthetic training. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 25, 133–151 (2014).
Wheaton, L. A. Neurorehabilitation in upper limb amputation: understanding how neurophysiological changes can affect functional rehabilitation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 14, 41 (2017).
Soyer, K., Ünver, B., Tamer, S. & Ülger, Ö. G. The importance of rehabilitation concerning upper extremity amputees: a systematic review. Pakistan J. Med. Sci. 32, 1312–1319 (2016).
Roche, A. D. et al. A structured rehabilitation protocol for improved multifunctional prosthetic control: a case study. J. Vis. Exp. 105, e52968 (2015).
Dise-Lewis, J. E. in Comprehensive Management of the Upper-Limb Amputee (eds Atkins, D. J. & Meier, R. H.) 165–172 (Springer, 1989).
Gallagher, P. & MacLachlan, M. Psychological adjustment and coping in adults with prosthetic limbs. Behav. Med. 25, 117–124 (1999).
Hruby, L. A., Pittermann, A., Sturma, A. & Aszmann, O. C. The Vienna psychosocial assessment procedure for bionic reconstruction in patients with global brachial plexus injuries. PLoS ONE 13, e0189592 (2018).
Sturma, A., Hruby, L. A., Prahm, C., Mayer, J. A. & Aszmann, O. C. Rehabilitation of upper extremity nerve injuries using surface EMG biofeedback: protocols for clinical application. Front. Neurosci. 12, 906 (2018).
Vujaklija, I. et al. Translating research on myoelectric control into clinics—are the performance assessment methods adequate? Front. Neurorobot. 11, 7 (2017).
Ortiz-Catalan, M., Rouhani, F., Branemark, R. & Hakansson, B. Offline accuracy: a potentially misleading metric in myoelectric pattern recognition for prosthetic control. In 2015 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) 1140–1143 (IEEE, 2015).
Jarvis, H. L. et al. Temporal spatial and metabolic measures of walking in highly functional individuals with lower limb amputations. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 98, 1389–1399 (2017).
Smurr, L. M., Gulick, K., Yancosek, K. & Ganz, O. Managing the upper extremity amputee: a protocol for success. J. Hand Ther. 21, 160–176 (2008).
Sturma, A. et al. Rehabilitation of high upper limb amputees after targeted muscle reinnervation. J. Hand Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2020.10.002 (2020).
Prahm, C., Vujaklija, I., Kayali, F., Purgathofer, P. & Aszmann, O. C. Game-based rehabilitation for myoelectric prosthesis control. JMIR Serious Games 5, e3 (2017).
Anderson, F. & Bischof, W. F. Augmented reality improves myoelectric prosthesis training. Int. J. Disabil. Hum. Dev. 13, 349–354 (2014).
Prahm, C., Kayali, F., Sturma, A. & Aszmann, O. PlayBionic: game-based interventions to encourage patient engagement and performance in prosthetic motor rehabilitation. PM&R 10, 1252–1260 (2018).
Tillander, J., Hagberg, K., Hagberg, L. & Brånemark, R. Osseointegrated titanium implants for limb prostheses attachments: infectious complications. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 468, 2781–2788 (2010).
Delgado-Martinez, I. et al. Fascicular nerve stimulation and recording using a novel double-aisle regenerative electrode. J. Neural Eng. 14, 046003 (2017).
Tan, D. W., Schiefer, M. A., Keith, M. W., Anderson, J. R. & Tyler, D. J. Stability and selectivity of a chronic, multi-contact cuff electrode for sensory stimulation in human amputees. J. Neural Eng. 12, 026002 (2015).
Micera, S., Caleo, M., Chisari, C., Hummel, F. C. & Pedrocchi, A. Advanced neurotechnologies for the restoration of motor function. Neuron 105, 604–620 (2020).
Delianides, C., Tyler, D., Pinault, G., Ansari, R. & Triolo, R. Implanted high density cuff electrodes functionally activate human tibial and peroneal motor units without chronic detriment to peripheral nerve health. Neuromodulation 23, 754–762 (2020).
Paggi, V., Akoussi, O., Micera, S. & Lacour, P. S. Compliant peripheral nerve interfaces. J. Neural Eng. 18, 031001 (2021).
Srinivasan, S. S. et al. On prosthetic control: a regenerative agonist-antagonist myoneural interface. Sci. Robot. 2, eaan2971 (2017).
Horch, K., Meek, S., Taylor, T. G. & Hutchinson, D. T. Object discrimination with an artificial hand using electrical stimulation of peripheral tactile and proprioceptive pathways with intrafascicular electrodes. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 19, 483–489 (2011).
Schiefer, M. A., Graczyk, E. L., Sidik, S. M., Tan, D. W. & Tyler, D. J. Artificial tactile and proprioceptive feedback improves performance and confidence on object identification tasks. PLoS ONE 13, e0207659 (2018).
Fernández, A., Isusi, I. & Gómez, M. Factors conditioning the return to work of upper limb amputees in Asturias, Spain. Prosthet. Orthot. Int. 24, 143–147 (2000).
Burger, H. & Marinček, Č. Return to work after lower limb amputation. Disabil. Rehabil. 29, 1323–1329 (2007).
Stieglitz, T. Of man and mice: translational research in neurotechnology. Neuron 105, 12–15 (2020).
van der Sluis, C. K. & Bongers, R. M. TIPS for scaling up research in upper limb prosthetics. Prosthesis 2, 340–351 (2020).
Hickey, G., Richards, T. & Sheehy, J. Co-production from proposal to paper. Nature 562, 29–31 (2018).
Vasudevan, S., Patel, K. & Welle, C. Rodent model for assessing the long term safety and performance of peripheral nerve recording electrodes. J. Neural Eng. 14, 016008 (2017).
Sartoretto, S. C. et al. Sheep as an experimental model for biomaterial implant evaluation. Acta Ortop. Bras. 24, 262–266 (2016).
Boretius, T. et al. A transverse intrafascicular multichannel electrode (TIME) to interface with the peripheral nerve. Biosens. Bioelectron. 26, 62–69 (2010).
Tyler, D. J. & Durand, D. M. Chronic response of the rat sciatic nerve to the flat interface nerve electrode. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 31, 633–642 (2003).
We were supported by the Academy of Finland (I.V.), Austrian Federal Ministry of Science (A.S. and O.C.A.), Bertarelli Foundation (S.M.), the European Union (A.S., D.F., K.-P.H., O.C.A., R.B. and S.M.), the European Research Council (A.S., D.F. and O.C.A.), German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF (K.-P.H. and T.S.), the German National Research Foundation (T.S.), the Royal British Legion (A.M.J.B.), the Swedish Innovation Agency (VINNOVA) (R.B.), the Swedish Research Council (R.B.), the Swiss National Competence Center in Research (NCCR) in Robotics (S.M.), US Department of Defense (R.B. and H.H.), US Department of Veterans Affairs (D.T.), US Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (R.F.ff.W.), US National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (H.H. and T.K.), US National Institutes of Health (D.T., H.H., L.J.H. and R.F.ff.W.), US National Institute on Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R.F.ff.W.), US National Institute on Bioimaging and Bioengineering (R.F.ff.W.) and US National Science Foundation (H.H.).
L.J.H. and T.K. have a financial interest in Coapt LLC (https://www.coaptengineering.com). S.M. is a co-founder of Sensars Neuroprosthetics (https://www.sensars.com). T.S. is a co-founder and scientific advisor of CorTec GmbH (https://www.cortec-neuro.com) and neuroloop GmbH (https://www.neuroloop.de). R.F.ff.W. is a co-founder and president of Point Designs Llc (https://www.pointdesignsllc.com). H.D. and B.G. are scientific managers at Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA. T.I. and K.K. are scientific officers at Össur Iceland. R.B. is the founder and chairman of Integrum AB. A.M.J.B. is co-founder and director of Biomex Ltd.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Farina, D., Vujaklija, I., Brånemark, R. et al. Toward higher-performance bionic limbs for wider clinical use. Nat Biomed Eng (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00732-x
This article is cited by
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (2022)
Journal of Bionic Engineering (2022)
Der Unfallchirurg (2022)
Survey of transfemoral amputee experience and priorities for the user-centered design of powered robotic transfemoral prostheses
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (2021)