4.7 Article

Perceptual correlates of successful body-prosthesis interaction in lower limb amputees: psychometric characterisation and development of the Prosthesis Embodiment Scale

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-70828-y

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Projekt DEAL
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [BE 5723/4-1]
  3. EFIC Grunenthal Grant (E-G-G 2018)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Prostheses are used to at least partly restore the body after limb amputation. Making the user accepting the prosthetic device as part of his or her body, i.e., inducing prosthesis embodiment, has been identified as major aim of prosthetic treatment. However, up to now, there is no consensus about the psychometric nature of prosthesis embodiment in limb amputees. In the present study, 118 unilateral lower limb amputees using a prosthesis were asked to complete an online questionnaire targeting prosthesis embodiment. Principal axis factoring revealed the factor structure of prosthesis embodiment, i.e., Ownership/Integrity, Agency, and Anatomical Plausibility, which resembles the embodiment structure previously identified for normally-limbed participants. The majority of amputees achieved prosthesis embodiment as assessed with the final version of the newly developed Prosthesis Embodiment Scale. Internal consistency was excellent, and test-retest reliability was satisfying, while the instrument was also sensitive for new prosthetic equipment. Validation on the basis of relationships to prosthesis satisfaction and adjustment to prosthesis use was performed. The Prosthesis Embodiment Scale could be a valuable tool for the assessment of perceptual correlates of successful body-prosthesis interaction in rehabilitative and research contexts, the latter which might further benefit from the comparability of psychometrically evaluated data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available