http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosthesis

Please read:A personal appeal fromWikipedia author Lilaroja 

Read now

ProsthesisFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

It needs additional references or

sources for verification. Tagged since October 2010.

It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality

standards. Tagged since October 2010.

For other uses, see Prosthesis (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with Orthotic.

"Artificial limb" redirects here.

A man with two prosthetic arms playing table football.

 

Disability

Disability in practice

Disability Theory · Ableism/Disablism

Society for Disability Studies

Models: Medical · Social

Approaches: Mainstreaming · IEP

Special needs · Special school

Special education · Learning disability

Physical therapy

Disability-oriented athletic training

Inclusion · Freak show

Disabled sports

Special Olympics · Paralympics

Extremity Games

Societal implications

Disability rights

People-first language

Pejorative Disability Terms

Structural and Assistive

Personal Care Assistant

Activities of Daily Living

Orthotics and braces · Prosthetics

Assistive technology

Mobility aids

Physical accessibility

Universal design

Web accessibility

Socioeconomic assistance

SSDI · SSI · DLA · ODSP

Students · Rail

Disability activist groups

ADAPT · Not Dead Yet

Disabled in Action · DPI

Visitability · RADAR

Disability assistance groups

Spastics Society of India · Scope · UCP

Inclusive arts and media

Disability in the arts

Disability in the media

Portal (categories · lists)

v • d • e

This article contains multiple duplicate sections and/or paragraphs due to several merges from articles dealing with different specific types of prostheses. Please clean up this article to remove duplicate wording.

In medicine, a prosthesis, prosthetic, or prosthetic limb (Greek: πρόσθεσις "addition") is an artificial device extension that replaces a missing body part. It is part of the field of biomechatronics, the science of using mechanical devices with human muscle, skeleton, and nervous systems to assist or enhance motor control lost by trauma, disease, or defect. Prostheses are typically

used to replace parts lost by injury (traumatic) or missing from birth (congenital) or to supplement defective body parts. Inside the body, artificial heart valves are in common use with artificial hearts and lungsseeing less common use but under active technology development. Other medical devices and aids that can be considered prosthetics include artificial eyes, palatal obturator, gastric bands, anddentures.

Prosthetics are specifically not orthotics, although given certain circumstances a prosthetic might end up performing some or all of the same functionary benefits as an orthotic. Prostheses (or "A" prosthesis) are technically the complete finished item. For instance, a C-Leg KNEE alone is NOT a prosthesis, but only a prosthetic PART. The complete prosthesis would consist of the stump attachment system - usually a "socket", and all the attachment hardware parts all the way down to and including the foot. Keep this in mind as often nomenclature is interchanged.

Contents

 [hide]

1 History

2 Lower extremity prosthetics

o 2.1 Lower extremity modern history

2.1.1 C-Leg Knee Prosthesis

3 Robotic prostheses

4 Cosmesis

5 Cognition

6 Prosthetic enhancement

o 6.1 Types

o 6.2 Transtibial Prosthesis

o 6.3 Transfemoral Prosthesis

o 6.4 Transradial Prosthesis

o 6.5 Transhumeral Prosthesis

7 Current technology/manufacturing

o 7.1 Body powered arms

o 7.2 Robotic limbs

o 7.3 Myoelectric

8 Cosmesis

9 Cognition

10 Direct Bone Attachment / Osseointegration

11 Prosthetic enhancement

12 Cost

13 Design considerations

o 13.1 Performance

o 13.2 Other

14 Emerging technology

15 References

[edit]History

Prosthetic toe from ancient Egypt

Prosthetics have been mentioned throughout history. Egyptians were the early pioneers of the idea. Roman bronze crowns have also been found, but their use could have been more aesthetic than medical.[1] The first recorded mention of a prosthetic was done by the historian Herodotus, who tells the story of a Hegistratus, a Persian soldier, who cut off his own foot to escape his

captors and replaced it with a wooden one. Pliny the Elder, a Roman scholar has also recorded that a Roman general who had his arm cutoff had an iron one made to hold his shield up when he returned to battle. A famous and quite refined[2] historical prosthetic arm was that of Götz von Berlichingen , made in the beginning of the 16th century. Around the same time,François de la Noue is also reported to have had an iron hand, as is, in the 17th century, René-Robert Cavalier de la Salle.[3] During the Dark Ages, prosthetics remained quite basic in form. Debilitated knights would be fitted with prosthetics so they could be fitted with a shield. Only the wealthy were able to afford anything that would assist in daily function. During the Renaissance, prosthetics also underwent a rebirth. Prosthetics development using iron, steel, copper, and wood started. Functional prosthetics began to make an appearance in the 1500s. Gotz von Berlichingen, a German mercenary, developed a pair of iron hands that could be moved by relaxing a series of releases and springs. Record written by an Italian surgeon also notes the existence of amputee who had an arm that allowed him to remove his hat, open his purse, and sign his name. Improvement in amputation surgery and prosthetic design came at the hands of Ambroise Paré. Among his inventions was an above-knee device that was a kneeling peg leg and foot prosthesis that had a fixed position, adjustable harness, and knee lock control. The functionality of his advancements showed what future prosthetics would function.

Other major improvements before the modern era:

Pieter Verduyn - First nonlocking below-knee (BK) prosthesis.

James Potts - Prosthesis made of a wooden shank and socket, a steel knee joint and an articulated foot that was controlled by catgut tendons from the knee to the ankle. Came to be known as “Anglesey Leg” or “Selpho Leg.”

Sir James Syme - A new method of ankle amputation that did not involve amputating at the thigh.

Benjamin Palmer - Improved upon the Selpho leg. Added an anterior spring and concealed tendons to simulate natural-looking movement.

Dubois Parmlee – Created prosthetic with a suction socket, polycentric knee, and multi-articulated foot.

Marcel Desoutter & Charles Desoutter – First aluminum prosthesis[4]

At the end of World War II, the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) began to advocate better research and development of prosthetics. Through government funding, a research and development program was developed within the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Veterans Administration.

The following organizations have been created to help and inform the general publics about prosthetics:

American Orthotics and Prosthetic Association, American Board for Certification in Prosthetics and Orthotics, American Academy of Orthotics and Prosthetics – These three groups work together to take responsibility for the academic side of orthotics and prosthetics and provide certification of individuals and facilities working with orthotics and prosthetics.

The International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics – Founded in 1970 and headquartered in

Copenhagen, this association helps with the progression in research and clinical practice worldwide. They hold an international conference every three years and publish their own technical journal.

Association of Children’s Orthotic-Prosthetic Clinics – The organization was started in 1950s to advocate research and development of children’s prosthetics. They meet annually and have their own publication.

Amputee Coalition of America – The organization was created in 1990 to improve the lives of amputees. Advocate the improvement of amputee lifestyle through education and also have their own publication, inMotion.

[edit]Lower extremity prosthetics

Lower extremity prosthetics describes artificially replaced limbs located at the hip level or lower. The two main subcategories of lower extremity prosthetic devices are 1.trans-tibial (any amputation transecting the tibia bone or a congenital anomaly resulting in a tibial deficiency) and 2.trans-femoral (any amputation transecting the femur bone or a congenital anomaly resulting in a femural deficiency). In the prosthetic industry a trans-tibial prosthetic leg is often referred to as a "BK" or below the knee prosthesis while the trans-femoral

prosthetic leg is often referred to as an "AK" or above the knee prosthesis.

Other, less prevalent lower extremity cases include the following:

1. Hip disarticulations - This usually refers to when an amputee or congenitally challenged patient has either an amputation or anomaly at or in close proximity to the hip joint.

2. Knee disarticulations - This usually refers to an amputation through the knee disarticulating the femur from the tibia.

3. Symes - This is an ankle disarticulation while preserving the heel pad.

[edit]Lower extremity modern historySocket technology for lower extremity limbs saw a revolution of advancement during the 1980s when Sabolich Prosthetics, John Sabolich C.P.O., invented the Contoured Adducted Trochanteric-Controlled Alignment Method (CATCAM) socket, later to evolve into the Sabolich Socket. The advancement was due to the difference in the socket to patient contact model. Prior, sockets were made in the shape of a square bucket with no specialized containment for either the patient's bony prominences' or muscular tissue.

Sabolich's design held the patient's limb like a glove, locking it into place and distributing the weight evenly over the existing limb as well as the bone structure of the patient. This was the first instance of ischial containment and led to an extreme advancement in patient accomplishment. Because of Sabolich's dedication to research and development in lower extremity prosthetics, Sabolich Prosthetics saw the first above the knee prosthetic patients walk and run step over step with both one leg and two legs missing, walking down stairs, suction sockets, modern plastic and bio elastic sockets, sense of feel technology, and numerous other inventions in the prosthetic field.

The first microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees became available in the early 1990s. The Intelligent Prosthesis was first commercially available microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee. It was released by Chas. A. Blatchford & Sons, Ltd., of Great Britain, in 1993 and made walking with the prosthesis feel and look more natural.[5] An improved version was released in 1995 by the name Intelligent Prosthesis Plus. Blatchford released another prosthesis, the Adaptive Prosthesis, in 1998. The Adaptive Prosthesis utilized hydraulic controls, pneumatic controls, and a

microprocessor to provide the amputee with a gait that was more responsive to changes in walking speed.[6]

[edit]C-Leg Knee Prosthesis

Two different models of the C-Leg

prosthesis

The Otto Bock Orthopedic Industry introduced the C-Leg during the World Congress on Orthopedics in Nuremberg in 1997. The company began marketing the C-Leg in the United States in 1999.[7] Other microprocessor controlled knee prostheses include Ossur's Rheo Knee, released in 2005, the Power Knee by Ossur, introduced in 2006, the Plié Knee from Freedom Innovations[8] and DAW Industries’ Self Learning Knee (SLK).[9]

The idea was originally developed by Kelly James, a Canadian engineer, at the University of Alberta.[10] The C-Leg uses hydraulic cylinders to control the flexing of the knee. Sensors send signals to the microprocessor that

analyzes these signals, and communicates what resistance the hydraulic cylinders should supply. C-Leg is an abbreviation of 3C100, the model number of the original prosthesis, but has continued to be applied to all Otto Bock microprocessor-controlled knee prostheses. The C-Leg functions through various technological devices incorporated into the components of the prosthesis. The C-Leg uses a knee-angle sensor to measure the angular position and angular velocity of the flexing joint. Measurements are taken up to 50 times a second. The knee-angle sensor is located directly at the axis of rotation of the knee.[11]

Moment sensors are located in the tube adaptor at the base of the C-Leg. These moment sensors use multiple strain gauges to determine where the force is being applied to the knee, from the foot, and the magnitude of that force.[11]

The C-Leg controls the resistance to rotation and extension of the knee using a hydraulic cylinder. Small valves control the amount of hydraulic fluidthat can pass into and out of the cylinder, thus regulating the extension and compression of a piston connected to the upper section of the knee.[6]The microprocessor receives signals from its sensors to determine the type of

motion being employed by the amputee. The microprocessor then signals the hydraulic cylinder to act accordingly. The microprocessor also records information concerning the motion of the amputee that can be downloaded onto a computer and analyzed. This information allows the user to make better use of the prosthetic.[11]

The C-Leg is powered by a lithium-ion battery housed inside the prosthesis below the knee joint. (cell is actually located within the axis of the joint) On a full charge, the C-leg can operate for up to 45 hours, depending on the intensity of use. A charging port located on the front of the knee joint can be connected to a charging cable plugged directly into a standard outlet.[12] A "pigtail" charging port adapter permits the relocation of the charging port to a location more accessible when the prosthesis has a cosmetic cover applied. The charger cord has lights that allow the user to observe the level of charge when connected to the knee. A 12 volt car charger adapter can also be purchased.

The C-Leg provides certain advantages over conventional mechanical knee prostheses. It provides an approximation to an amputee’s natural gait. The C-Leg allows amputees to walk at near walking speed. Variations

in speed are also possible and are taken into account by sensors and communicated to the microprocessor, which adjusts to these changes accordingly. It also enables the amputees to walk down stairs with a step-over-step approach, rather than the one step at a time approach used with mechanical knees.[7] The C-Leg’s ability to respond to sensor readings can help amputees recover from stumbles without the knee buckling.[13] However, the C-Leg has some significant drawbacks that impair its use. The C-Leg is susceptible to water damage and thus great care must be taken to ensure that the prosthesis remains dry. Otto Bock recommends that each amputee use the C-Leg for up to two months before the system can fully become accustomed to the individual’s unique gait. Becoming accustomed to the C-Leg is especially difficult when walking downhill, and amputees should seek help while becoming familiar with the system to avoid injury.[7]

A wide range of amputees can make use of the C-Leg; however, some people are more suited to this prosthesis than others. The C-Leg is designed for use on people who have undergone transfemoral amputation, or amputation above the knee. The C-Leg can be used by amputees with either

single or bilateral limb amputations. In the case of bilateral amputations, the application of C-Legs must be closely monitored. In some cases, those who have undergone hip disarticulation amputations can be candidates for a C-Leg.[14] The prosthesis is recommended for amputees that vary their walking speeds and can reach over 3 miles per hour; however, it cannot be used for running. The C-Leg is practical for upwards of 3 miles daily, and can be used on uneven ground, slopes, or stairs. Active amputees, such as bikers and rollerbladers may find the C-Leg suited to their needs.

Certain physical requirements must be met for C-Leg use. The amputee must have satisfactory cardiovascular and pulmonary health. The balance and strength of the amputee must be sufficient to take strides while using prosthesis. The C-Leg is designed to support amputees weighing up to 275 pounds.[14]

[edit]Robotic prostheses

Further information: Robotics#Touch

In order for a robotic prosthetic limb to work, it must have several components to integrate it into the body's function: Biosensors detect signals from the user's nervous or muscular systems. It then relays this information to a controller located inside the

device, and processes feedback from the limb and actuator (e.g., position, force) and sends it to the controller. Examples include wires that detect electrical activity on the skin, needle electrodes implanted in muscle, or solid-state electrode arrays with nerves growing through them. One type of these biosensors are employed inmyoelectric prosthesis.

Mechanical sensors process aspects affecting the device (e.g., limb position, applied force, load) and relay this information to the biosensor or controller. Examples include force meters and accelerometers.

The controller is connected to the user's nerve and muscular systems and the device itself. It sends intention commands from the user to the actuators of the device, and interprets feedback from the mechanical and biosensors to the user. The controller is also responsible for the monitoring and control of the movements of the device.

An actuator mimics the actions of a muscle in producing force and movement. Examples include a motor that aids or replaces original muscle tissue.

[edit]Cosmesis

Cosmetic prosthesis has long been used to disguise injuries and

disfigurements. With advances in modern technology, cosmesis, the creation of lifelike limbs made from silicone or PVC has been made possible. Such prosthetics, such as artificial hands, can now be made to mimic the appearance of real hands, complete with freckles, veins, hair, fingerprints and even tattoos. Custom-made cosmeses are generally more expensive (costing thousands of US dollars, depending on the level of detail), while standard cosmeses come ready-made in various sizes, although they are often not as realistic as their custom-made counterparts. Another option is the custom-made silicone cover, which can be made to match a person's skin tone but not details such as freckles or wrinkles. Cosmeses are attached to the body in any number of ways, using an adhesive, suction, form-fitting, stretchable skin, or a skin sleeve.

[edit]Cognition

Main article: Neuroprosthetics

Unlike neuromotor prostheses, neurocognitive prostheses would sense or modulate neural function in order to physically reconstitute or augment cognitive processes such as executive function, attention, language, and memory. No neurocognitive prostheses are currently available but the

development of implantable neurocognitive brain-computer interfaces has been proposed to help treat conditions such as stroke, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, autism, and Alzheimer's disease.[15] The recent field of Assistive Technology for Cognition concerns the development of technologies to augment human cognition. Scheduling devices such as Neuropage remind users with memory impairments when to perform certain activities, such as visiting the doctor. Micro-prompting devices such as PEAT, AbleLink and Guide have been used to aid users with memory and executive function problems perform activities of daily living.

[edit]Prosthetic enhancement

Further information: Powered exoskeleton#Research

In addition to the standard artificial limb for everyday use, many amputees or congenital patients have special limbs and devices to aid in the participation of sports and recreational activities.

Within science fiction, and, more recently, within the scientific community, there has been consideration given to using advanced prostheses to replace healthy body

parts with artificial mechanisms and systems to improve function. The morality and desirability of such technologies are being debated. Body parts such as legs, arms, hands, feet, and others can be replaced.

The first experiment with a healthy individual appears to have been that by the British scientist Kevin Warwick. In 2002, an implant was interfaced directly into Warwick's nervous system. The electrode array, which contained around a hundred electrodes, was placed in the median nerve. The signals produced were detailed enough that a robot arm was able to mimic the actions of Warwick's own arm and provide a form of touch feedback again via the implant.[16]

In early 2008, Oscar Pistorius, the "Blade Runner" of South Africa, was briefly ruled ineligible to compete in the 2008 Summer Olympics because his prosthetic limbs were said to give him an unfair advantage over runners who had ankles. One researcher found that his limbs used twenty-five percent less energy than those of an able-bodied runner moving at the same speed. This ruling was overturned on appeal, with the appellate court stating that the overall set of advantages and disadvantages of Pistorius' limbs had not been considered. Pistorius did not qualify for the South African team for

the Olympics, but went on to sweep the 2008 Summer Paralympics, and has been ruled eligible to qualify for any future Olympics.

The "Luke arm" is an advanced prosthesis currently under trials as of 2008.[17]

[edit]Types

A United States Marine with bilateral

prosthetic legs leads a formation run.

There are four main types of artificial limbs. These include the transtibial, transfemoral, transradial, andtranshumeral prostheses. The type of prosthesis depends on what part of the limb is missing.

[edit]Transtibial Prosthesis

A transtibial prosthesis  is an artificial limb that replaces a leg missing below the knee. Transtibial amputees are usually able to regain normal movement more readily than someone with a transfemoral amputation, due in large part to retaining the knee, which allows for easier movement. In the prosthetic industry a trans-tibial prosthetic leg is often referred to as a "BK" or below the knee prosthesis.

[edit]Transfemoral ProsthesisA transfemoral prosthesis  is an artificial limb that replaces a leg missing above the knee. Transfemoral amputees can have a very difficult time regaining normal movement. In general, a transfemoral amputee must use approximately 80% more energy to walk than a person with two whole legs.[18] This is due to the complexities in movement associated with the knee. In newer and more improved designs, after employing hydraulics, carbon fibre, mechanical linkages, motors, computer microprocessors, and innovative combinations of these technologies to give more control to the user. In the prosthetic industry a trans-femoral prosthetic leg is often referred to as an "AK" or above the knee prosthesis.[19]

[edit]Transradial Prosthesis

A transradial prosthesis  is an artificial limb that replaces an arm missing below the elbow. Two main types of prosthetics are available. Cable operated limbs work by attaching a harness and cable around the opposite shoulder of the damaged arm. The other form of prosthetics available are myoelectric arms. These work by sensing, via electrodes, when the muscles in the upper arm moves, causing an artificial hand to open or close. In the prosthetic industry a trans-radial prosthetic arm is often referred to as a "BE" or below elbow prosthesis.

[edit]Transhumeral ProsthesisA transhumeral prosthesis  is an artificial limb that replaces an arm missing above the elbow. Transhumeral amputees experience some of the same problems as transfemoral amputees, due to the similar complexities associated with the movement of the elbow. This makes mimicking the correct motion with an artificial limb very difficult. In the prosthetic industry a trans-humeral prosthesis is often referred to as a "AE" or above the elbow prothesis.

[edit]Current technology/manufacturing

Knee prosthesis manufactured

using WorkNC Computer Aided

Manufacturing software.

In recent years there have been significant advancements in artificial limbs. New plastics and other materials, such as carbon fiber, have allowed artificial limbs to be stronger and lighter, limiting the amount of extra energy necessary to operate the limb. This is especially important for transfemoral amputees. Additional materials have allowed artificial limbs to look much more realistic, which is important to transradial and transhumeral amputees because they are more likely to have the artificial limb exposed.[20]

In addition to new materials, the use of electronics has become very common in artificial limbs. Myoelectric limbs, which control the limbs by converting muscle movements to electrical signals, have become much more common than cable operated limbs. Myoelectric signals are picked up by electrodes, the signal gets integrated

and once it exceeds a certain threshold, the prosthetic limb control signal is triggered which is why inherently, all myoelectric controls lag. Conversely, cable control is immediate and physical, and through that offers a certain degree of direct force feedback that myoelectric control does not. Computers are also used extensively in the manufacturing of limbs. Computer Aided Design and Computer Aided Manufacturing are often used to assist in the design and manufacture of artificial limbs.[20]

Most modern artificial limbs are attached to the stump of the amputee by belts and cuffs or by suction. The stump either directly fits into a socket on the prosthetic, or - more commonly today - a liner is used that then is fixed to the socket either by vacuum (suction sockets) or a pin lock. Liners are soft and by that, they can create a far better suction fit than hard sockets. Silicone liners can be obtained in standard sizes, mostly with a circular (round) cross section, but for any other stump shape, custom liners can be made. The socket is custom made to fit the residual limb and to distribute the forces of the artificial limb across the area of the stump (rather than just one small spot), which helps reduce wear on the stump. The custom socket is created by taking a plaster cast of the

stump or, more commonly today, of the liner worn over the stump, and then making a mold from the plaster cast. Newer methods include laser guided measuring which can be input directly to a computer allowing for a more sophisticated design.

One problems with the stump and socket attachment is that a bad fit will reduce the area of contact between the stump and socket or liner, and increase pockets between stump skin and socket or liner. Pressure then is higher, which can be painful. Air pockets can allow sweat to accumulate that can soften the skin. Ultimately, this is a frequent cause for itchy skin rashes. Further down the road, it can cause breakdown of the skin.[18]

Artificial limbs are typically manufactured using the following steps:[20]

1. Measurement of the stump

2. Measurement of the body to determine the size required for the artificial limb

3. Fitting of a silicone liner

4. Creation of a model of the liner worn over the stump

5. Formation of thermoplastic sheet around the model – This is then used to test the fit of the prosthetic

6. Formation of permanent socket

7. Formation of plastic parts of the artificial limb – Different methods are used, including vacuum forming and injection molding

8. Creation of metal parts of the artificial limb using die casting

9. Assembly of entire limb

[edit]Body powered armsCurrent body powered arms contain sockets that are built from hard epoxy or carbon fiber. Wrist units are either screw-on connectors featuring the UNF 1/2-20 thread (USA) or quick release connector, of which there are different models. Terminal devices contain a range of hooks, hands or other devices. Hosmer and Otto Bock are major commercial hook providers. Mechanical hands are sold by Hosmer and Otto Bock as well; the Becker Hand is still manufactured by the Becker family. Prosthetic hands may be fitted with standard stock or custom made cosmetic looking silicone gloves. But regular work gloves may be worn as well. Other terminal devices include the V2P Prehensor, a versatile robust gripper that allows customers to modify aspects of it, Texas Assist Devices (with a whole assortment of tools) and TRS that offers a range of terminal devices for sports. Cable harnesses can be built using aircraft steel cables, ball hinges and self lubricating cable sheaths. Current high tech allows body

powered arms to weigh around half to only a third of the weight that a myoelectric arm has.

[edit]Robotic limbsMain article: Neural prosthetics

Further information: Robotics#Touch

Advancements in the processors used in myoelectric arms has allowed for artificial limbs to make gains in fine tuned control of the prosthetic. TheBoston Digital Arm is a recent artificial limb that has taken advantage of these more advanced processors. The arm allows movement in five axes and allows the arm to be programmed for a more customized feel.[21] Raymond Edwards, Limbless Association Acting CEO, was the first amputee to be fitted with the i-LIMB by the National Health Service in the UK.[22] The hand, manufactured by "Touch Bionics"[23] of Scotland (a Livingstoncompany), went on sale on 18 July 2007 in Britain.[24] It was named alongside the Super Hadron Collider in Time magazine's top 50 innovations.[25]Another robotic hand is the RSLSteeper bebionic  [26]

Another neural prosthetic is Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Proto 1. Besides the Proto 1, the university also finished theProto 2 in 2010.[27]

Targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) is a technique in which motor nerves which previously controlled muscles on an amputated limb are surgicallyrerouted such that they reinnervate a small region of a large, intact muscle, such as the pectoralis major . As a result, when a patient thinks about moving the thumb of his missing hand, a small area of muscle on his chest will contract instead. By placing sensors over the reinervated muscle, these contractions can be made to control movement of an appropriate part of the robotic prosthesis.[28][29]

An emerging variant of this technique is called targeted sensory reinnervation (TSR). This procedure is similar to TMR, except that sensory nervesare surgically rerouted to skin on the chest, rather than motor nerves rerouted to muscle. The patient then feels any sensory stimulus on that area of the chest, such as pressure or temperature, as if it were occurring on the area of the amputated limb which the nerve originally innervated. In the future, artificial limbs could be built with sensors on fingertips or other important areas. When a stimulus, such as pressure or temperature, activated these sensors, an electrical signal would be sent to an actuator, which would produce a similar stimulus on the

"rewired" area of chest skin. The user would then feel that stimulus as if it were occurring on an appropriate part of the artificial limb.[28]

Recently, robotic limbs have improved in their ability to take signals from the human brain and translate those signals into motion in the artificial limb. DARPA, the Pentagon’s research division, is working to make even more advancements in this area. Their desire is to create an artificial limb that ties directly into the nervous system.[30]

Actor Owen Wilson gripping the

myoelectric prosthetic arm of a United

States Marine

[edit]MyoelectricA myoelectric prosthesis uses electromyography signals or potentials from voluntarily contracted muscles within a person's residual limb on the surface of the skin to control the movements of the

prosthesis, such as elbow flexion/extension, wrist supination/pronation (rotation) or hand opening/closing of the fingers. A prosthesis of this type utilizes the residual neuro-muscular system of the human body to control the functions of an electric powered prosthetic hand, wrist or elbow. This is as opposed to an electric switch prosthesis, which requires straps and/or cables actuated by body movements to actuate or operate switches that control the movements of a prosthesis or one that is totally mechanical. It is not clear whether those few prostheses that provide feedback signals to those muscles are also myoelectric in nature. It has a self suspending socket with pick up electrodes placed over flexors and extensors for the movement of flexion and extension respectively.

The first commercial myoelectric arm was developed in 1964 by the Central Prosthetic Research Instituteof the USSR, and distributed by the Hangar Limb Factory of the UK.[31]

[32]

[edit]Cosmesis

Cosmetic prosthesis has long been used to disguise injuries and disfigurements. With advances in modern technology, cosmesis, the creation of lifelike limbs made

from silicone or PVC has been made possible. Such prosthetics, such as artificial hands, can now be made to mimic the appearance of real hands, complete with freckles, veins, hair, fingerprints and even tattoos. Custom-made cosmeses are generally more expensive (costing thousands of US dollars, depending on the level of detail), while standard cosmeses come ready-made in various sizes, although they are often not as realistic as their custom-made counterparts. Another option is the custom-made silicone cover, which can be made to match a person's skin tone but not details such as freckles or wrinkles. Cosmeses are attached to the body in any number of ways, using an adhesive, suction, form-fitting, stretchable skin, or a skin sleeve.

[edit]Cognition

Main article: Neuroprosthetics

Unlike neuromotor prostheses, neurocognitive prostheses would sense or modulate neural function in order to physically reconstitute or augment cognitive processes such as executive function, attention, language, and memory. No neurocognitive prostheses are currently available but the development of implantable neurocognitive brain-computer interfaces has been proposed to help

treat conditions such as stroke, traumatic brain injury, cerebral palsy, autism, and Alzheimer's disease.[33] The recent field of Assistive Technology for Cognition concerns the development of technologies to augment human cognition. Scheduling devices such as Neuropage remind users with memory impairments when to perform certain activities, such as visiting the doctor. Micro-prompting devices such as PEAT, AbleLink and Guide have been used to aid users with memory and executive function problems perform activities of daily living.

[edit]Direct Bone Attachment / Osseointegration

Main article: Osseointegration

Osseointegration is a new method of attaching the artificial limb to the body. This method is also sometimes referred to as exoprosthesis (attaching an artificial limb to the bone), or endo-exoprosthesis.

The stump and socket method can cause significant pain in the amputee, which is why the direct bone attachment has been explored extensively. The method works by inserting a titanium bolt into the bone at the end of the stump. After several

months the bone attaches itself to the titanium bolt and an abutment is attached to the titanium bolt. The abutment extends out of the stump and the artificial limb is then attached to the abutment. Some of the benefits of this method include:

Better muscle control of the prosthetic.

The ability to wear the prosthetic for an extended period of time; with the stump and socket method this is not possible.

The ability for transfemoral amputees to drive a car.

The main disadvantage of this method is that amputees with the direct bone attachment cannot have large impacts on the limb, such as those experienced during jogging, because of the potential for the bone to break.[18]

[edit]Prosthetic enhancement

Further information: Powered exoskeleton#Research

In addition to the standard artificial limb for everyday use, many amputees or congenital patients have special limbs and devices to aid in the participation of sports and recreational activities.

In 2008, Oscar Pistorius was briefly ruled

ineligible for the 2008 Summer Olympics due

to an alleged mechanical advantage over

runners who have ankles.

Within science fiction, and, more recently, within the scientific community, there has been consideration given to using advanced prostheses to replace healthy body parts with artificial mechanisms and systems to improve function. The morality and desirability of such technologies are being debated. Body parts such as legs, arms, hands, feet, and others can be replaced.

The first experiment with a healthy individual appears to have been that by the British scientist Kevin Warwick. In 2002, an implant was interfaced directly into Warwick's nervous system. The electrode array, which contained around a hundred electrodes, was placed in the median nerve. The

signals produced were detailed enough that arobot arm was able to mimic the actions of Warwick's own arm and provide a form of touch feedback again via the implant.[16]

In early 2008, Oscar Pistorius, the "Blade Runner" of South Africa, was briefly ruled ineligible to compete in the2008 Summer Olympics because his prosthetic limbs were said to give him an unfair advantage over runners who had ankles. One researcher found that his limbs used twenty-five percent less energy than those of an able-bodied runner moving at the same speed. This ruling was overturned on appeal, with the appellate court stating that the overall set of advantages and disadvantages of Pistorius' limbs had not been considered. Pistorius did not qualify for the South African team for the Olympics, but went on to sweep the 2008 Summer Paralympics, and has been ruled eligible to qualify for any future Olympics.[34]

The "Luke arm" is an advanced prosthesis currently under trials as of 2008.[17]

[edit]Cost

This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

It needs sources   or   references  that

appear in third-party

publications. Tagged since October 2010.

It is written like an advertisement and

needs to be rewritten from a neutral

point of view. Tagged since October

2010.

Transradial and transtibial prostheses typically cost between US $6,000 and $8,000. Transfemoral and transhumeral prosthetics cost approximately twice as much with a range of $10,000 to $15,000 and can sometimes reach costs of $35,000. The cost of an artificial limb does recur because artificial limbs are usually replaced every 3–4 years due to wear and tear. In addition, if the artificial limb has fit issues, the limb must be replaced within several months.[35] [36]

Low cost above knee prostheses often provide only basic structural support with limited function. This function is often achieved with crude, non-articulating, unstable, or manually locking knee joints. A limited number of organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), create devices for developing countries. Their device which is manufactured by CR Equipments is a single-axis, manually operated locking polymer prosthetic knee joint.[37]

Table. List of knee joint technologies based on the literature review. [38]

Name of technology (country of origin)

Brief descriptionHighest level of

evidence

ICRC knee (Switzerlan)Single-axis with manual lock

Independent field

ATLAS knee (UK)Weigh-activated friction

Independent field

POF/OTRC knee (US)Single-axis with ext. assist

Field

DAV/Seattle knee (US)Compliant polycentric

Field

LEGS M1 knee (US) Four-bar Field

JaipurKnee (US) Four-bar Field

LCKnee (Canada)Single-axis with automatic lock

Field

None provided (Nepal) Single-axis Field

None provided (New Zealand)

Roto-molded single-axis

Field

None provided (India)Six-bar with squatting

Technical development

Friction knee (US)Weigh-activated friction

Technical development

Wedgelock knee (Australia)

Weigh-activated friction

Technical development

SATHI friction knee (India)

Weigh-activated friction

Limited data available

Low Cost Above Knee Prosthetic Limbs:

ICRC Knee (left) and LC Knee (right)

There is currently an open Prosthetics design forum known as the "Open Prosthetics Project". The group employs collaborators and volunteers to advance Prosthetics technology while attempting to lower the costs of these necessary devices. Visit their site at http://OpenProsthetics.org.

A plan for a low-cost artificial leg, designed by Sébastien Dubois, was featured at the 2007 International Design Exhibition and award show in Copenhagen, Denmark, where it won the Index: Award. It would be able to create an energy-return prosthetic leg for US $8.00, composed primarily of fiberglass.[39]

Prior to the 1980s, foot prostheses merely restored basic walking capabilities. These early devices can be characterized by a simple artificial attachment connecting one's residual limb to the ground.

The introduction of the Seattle Foot (Seattle Limb Systems) in 1981 revolutionized the field, bringing the concept of an Energy Storing Prosthetic Foot (ESPF) to the fore. Other companies soon followed suit, and before long, there were multiple models of energy storing prostheses on the market. Each model utilized some variation of a compressible heel. The heel is compressed during initial ground contact, storing energy which is then returned during the latter phase of ground contact to help propel the body forward.

Since then, the foot prosthetics industry has been dominated by steady, small improvements in performance, comfort, and marketability. Jaipur Foot , an artificial limb from Jaipur, India, costs about US$ 40.

[edit]Design considerations

There are multiple factors to consider when designing a transtibial prosthesis. Manufacturers must make choices about their priorities regarding these factors.

[edit]PerformanceNonetheless, there are certain elements of foot mechanics that are invaluable for the athlete, and these are the focus of today’s high-tech prosthetics companies:

Energy storage and return – storage of energy acquired through ground contact and utilization of that stored energy for propulsion

Energy absorption – minimizing the effect of high impact on the musculoskeletal system

Ground compliance – stability independent of terrain type and angle

Rotation – ease of changing direction

Weight – maximizing comfort, balance and speed

Suspension - how the socket will join and fit to the limb

[edit]OtherThe buyer is also concerned with numerous other factors:

Cosmetics

Cost

Ease of use

Size availability

[edit]Emerging technology

Most companies choose to focus on two areas of performance: energy capabilities and ground compliance. Two particular models exemplify the innovation in these areas: the Elite foot (Endolite) and the Venture foot (College Park Industries).

The Elite foot relies on a polymeric material with a very specific set of

elasticity and resistance requirements in order to optimize energy storage and return. It also uses an unprecedented three-pronged foot, which allegedly allows the foot to closely mold to the contours of any surface.

In contrast, the Venture foot retains the common one-point contact with the ground, but seeks to maximize performance (in both energy and compliance) with a complex metal heel component. This heel is equipped not just with a standard compressible foam piece, but also hinges which allow rotation on three different axes, allegedly yielding superior comfort (ground compliance) and a more precise mimicry of native foot biomechanics (energy capabilities).

Many other foot prostheses employ other useful innovative technology and designs. No one foot is perfect for all transtibial amputees. Hopefully, however, each amputee can find a foot that is best for his or her particular pattern of physical activity.

[edit]References

1. ̂  "Bronze single crown-like

prosthetic restorations of teeth from

the Late Roman period = Des

restaurations par prothèses

identiques à des couronnes en

simple bronze de dents pendant la

fin de la période romaine".

Cat.inist.fr. Retrieved 2009-11-03.

2. ̂  "The Iron Hand of the Goetz von

Berlichingen". Karlofgermany.com.

Retrieved 2009-11-03.

3. ̂  "Bryce, Geore, ''A Short History

of the Canadian People''".

Archive.org. Retrieved 2009-11-03.

4. ̂  "A Brief History of

Prosthetics". inMotion: A Brief

History of Prosthetics.

November/December 2007.

Retrieved 23 November 2010.

5. ̂  “History of Prosthetics”,

Blatchford & Sons, Ltd. Retrieved

16 March 2008.

6. ^ a b Pike, Alvin (May/June 1999).

“The New High Tech Prostheses”.

InMotion Magazine 9 (3)

7. ^ a b c Martin, Craig W. (November

2003) “Otto Bock C-leg: A review of

its effectiveness”. WCB Evidence

Based Group

8. ̂  "Retrieved 14 April 2009".

Freedom-innovations.com.

Retrieved 2010-10-03.

9. ̂  “The SLK, The Self-Learning

Knee”, DAW Industries. Retrieved

16 March 2008.

10. ̂  Marriott, Michel (2005-06-

20). "Titanium and Sensors

Replace Ahab's Peg Leg". New

York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-30.

11.^ a b c “Otto Bock Microprocessor

Knees”, Otto Bock. Retrieved 16

March 2008.

12. ̂  “FAQ: Questions and Answers on

the C-Leg.”, Otto Bock. Retrieved 1

April 2008.

13. ̂  “High-Tech for more Quality of

Life”, Otto Bock. Retrieved 16

March 2008.

14.^ a b “Clinical and Technical

Information”[dead link], Otto Bock.

Retrieved 16 March 2008.

15. ̂  Serruya MD, Kahana MJ (2008).

"Techniques and devices to restore

cognition". Behav Brain

Res 192 (2):

149.doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.04.007. 

PMID 18539345.

16.^ a b Warwick,K, Gasson,M, Hutt,B,

Goodhew,I, Kyberd,P, Andrews,B,

Teddy,P and Shad,A. “The

Application of Implant Technology

for Cybernetic Systems”, Archives

of Neurology, 60(10), pp1369-

1373, 2003

17.^ a b "IEEE Spectrum: Dean

Kamen's "Luke Arm" Prosthesis

Readies for Clinical Trials".

18.^ a b c "Getting an Artificial Leg

Up", Australian Broadcasting

Corporation, 2000. Retrieved 11

February 2007.

19. ̂  Physics: A First

Course. "Connections, designing a

better prosthetic leg"

20.^ a b c "How artificial limb is made -

Background, Raw materials, The

manufacturing process of artificial

limb, Physical therapy, Quality

control". Madehow.com. 1988-04-

04. Retrieved 2010-10-03.

21. ̂  Recently the i-Limb hand,

invented in Edinburgh, Scotland, by

David Gow has become the first

commercially available hand

prosthesis with five individually

powered digits. The hand also

possesses a manually rotatable

thumb which is operated passively

by the user and allows the hand to

grip in precision, power and key

grip modes. "Advanced Signal

Processing Dramatically Improves

Capability of Artificial Limbs"[dead link],

SIGMO Technology, 2005.

Retrieved 11 February 2007.

22. ̂  "Bionic hand wins top tech

prize". BBC News. 9 June 2008.

Retrieved 25 April 2010.

23. ̂  "Touch Bionics". Touch Bionics.

Retrieved 2010-10-03.

24. ̂  Highfield, Roger (31 May

2008). "Gripping stuff". The Daily

Telegraph (London). Retrieved 25

April 2010.

25. ̂  "Bionic hand makes top

inventions list // Current".

Current.com. 2008-11-06.

Retrieved 2010-10-03.

26. ̂  [www.rslsteeper.com/

RSLSteeper bebionic]

27. ̂  "Proto 1 and Proto 2". Ric.org.

2007-05-01. Retrieved 2010-10-03.

28.^ a b Kuiken TA, Miller LA,

Lipschutz RD, Lock BA,

Stubblefield K, Marasco PD, Zhou

P, Dumanian GA (February 3,

2007). "Targeted reinnervation for

enhanced prosthetic arm function

in a woman with a proximal

amputation: a case

study". Lancet 369 (9559): 371–

80.doi:10.1016/S0140-

6736(07)60193-7. PMID 17276777.

29. ̂  "Blogs: TR Editors' blog: Patients

Test an Advanced Prosthetic Arm".

Technology Review. 2009-02-10.

Retrieved 2010-10-03.

30. ̂  "Defense Sciences Office".

Darpa.mil. Retrieved 2010-10-03.

31. ̂  Sherman, E. David (1964). "A

Russian Bioeleciric-Controlled

Prosthesis: Report of a Research

Team from the Rehabilitation

Institute of Montreal". Canadian

Medical Association

Journal 91 (24): 1268–1270.

Retrieved 2009-05-05.

32. ̂  Muzumdar, Ashok

(2004). Powered Upper Limb

Prostheses: Control,

Implementation and Clinical

Application.

Springer.ISBN 9783540404064.

33. ̂  Serruya MD, Kahana MJ (2008).

"Techniques and devices to restore

cognition". Behav Brain

Res 192 (2):

149.doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.04.007. 

PMID 18539345.

34. ̂  "Oscar Pistorius: Athlete, activist,

fastest man on no legs". Beijing

2008 Paralympic Games. 9

September 2008. Retrieved 21

November 2010.

35. ̂  "Cost of Prosthetics Stirs

Debate", The Boston Globe, 5 July

2005. Retrieved 11 February 2007.

36. ̂  [8]

37. ̂  ""ICRC: Trans-Femoral

Prosthesis – Manufacturing

Guidelines""(PDF). Retrieved 2010-

10-03.

38. ̂  ANDRYSEK, J., "Lower-limb

prosthetic technologies in the

developing world: A review of

literature from 1994–2010"

Prosthetics and Orthotics

International, 2010; Early Online,

1–21.

39. ̂  INDEX:2007 INDEX: AWARD[dead

link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Artificial limbs

Murdoch, George; A. Bennett Wilson, Jr. (1997). A Primer on Amputations and Artificial Limbs. United States of America: Charles C

Thomas Publisher, Ltd.. pp. 3–31. ISBN 0-398-06801-1.

‘Biomechanics of running: from faulty movement patterns come injury.' Sports Injury Bulletin.

Edelstein, J. E. Prosthetic feet. State of the Art. Physical Therapy 68(12) Dec 1988: 1874-1881.

Gailey, Robert. The Biomechanics of Amputee Running. October 2002.

Hafner, B. J., Sanders, J. E., Czerniecki, J. M., Ferguson , J. Transtibial energy-storage-and-return prosthetic devices: A review of energy concepts and a proposed nomenclature. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development Vol. 39, No. 1 Jan/Feb 2002: 1-11.

National Amputee Centre  — Information about artificial limbs

Encyclopedia about Dental Implants in Russian

How Stuff Works   : Biomechatronics - An overview of the field of biomechatronics, of which prosthetics is a part

Otto Bock

American Academy of Orthotists and Prosthetists

Chard Museum  Display of James Gillingham's work on post WW1 artificial limbs.

National Amputee Centre  — Information about artificial limbs

How Stuff Works   : Biomechatronics - An overview of the field of biomechatronics, of which prosthetics is a part

Myoelectric Prosthetics  — Information about Myoelectric Prosthetics

Myoelectric Prosthetesis  — Children's Electronic Hand Assistance Project (CEHAP)

Categories: Bioengineering | Biomedical engineering | Bionics | Disability | Implants | Medical equipment | Neuroprosthetics | Prosthetics

Log in / create account Article Discussion Read Edit View history

 Main page

Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages Brezhoneg Български Català Česky Dansk Deutsch Español Esperanto Estremeñu فارسی Français Galego Ido Íslenska Italiano עברית Latviešu Lietuvių Nederlands 日本語 Norsk (bokmål) Polski Português Română Русский Simple English Slovenščina Suomi Svenska ไทย Türkçe 中文

This page was last modified on 8 December

2010 at 17:14.

Text is available under the Creative Commons

Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional

terms may apply. See Terms of Use for

details.

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of

the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit

organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

http://www.mathworks.com/company/newsletters/news_notes/2009/jhu-model-based-design.html

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/darpawatch/

SUBSCRIBE RENEW GIVE A GIFT INTERNATIONAL

Sign In  |

  RSS Feeds  

                                                                                    

All posts tagged ‘DarpaWatch’‘Snake-Bot’ Evolves into Shorter, Smarter ‘Worm-Bot’

By David Axe    November 18, 2010  |   7:31 am  |   Categories: Drones

Designers of military robots have long looked to the animal kingdom for inspiration.

Specifically, they seek to understand “gaits” — that is, how creatures have adapted for

moving across different kinds of terrain. For instance, it’s no accident that the Army’s

mountain-climbing Big Dog bot prototype has legs like a mule.

One of the holy grails of these “biomorphic” robotics is the robot snake. A long segmented

body is adaptable for a wide range of tasks, potentially “overcoming obstacles that are a

significant fraction of its length, crossing slippery surfaces, ascending poles, climbing steep

slopes and optically sensing its immediate surroundings,” according to the Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa. A robo-snake slither undetected through

grass and raise its head to look around, or even climb a tree for a better view. It could be

the perfect robot spy.

U.S. firm Sarcos, part of Raytheon, has a head start on robot snakes, having built several

versions of its so-called “Multi Dimensional Mobility Robot” in response to Darpa

solicitations. But Sarcos has run into some of the big obstacles inherent in snake-bot

design. The same complex gait that makes a snake such an adaptable critter makes it

super tough to emulate. “It’s complex locomotion,” Sarcos designer Stephen Jacobsen said.

Building on the work of Sarcos and other companies, an Israeli bot-maker thinks it has

figured out the key to a better robot snake, by “evolving” it into a robot worm.

Continue Reading “‘Snake-Bot’ Evolves into Shorter, Smarter ‘Worm-Bot’” »Tags: Animal Kingdom, BigDog, DarpaWatch, Raytheon, robot snake

Post Comment   |   Comments (5)   |   Permalink

Darpa: Now We Know Why Our Mach-20 Ship Crashed

By David Axe    November 16, 2010  |   4:57 pm  |   Categories: DarpaWatch

It took six months, but the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency finally has a

handle on what caused its hypersonic weapon prototype to “terminate” itself over the Pacific

Ocean back in April. The findings have paved the way for a fresh round of tests for the

Mach-20 flier, potentially leading to a new class of superfast weapons.

The Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2 — a 12-foot, 2,000-pound wedge packing a three-stage

Minotaur booster — launched without incident from California on April 22. It climbed to the

edge of space for a planned 30-minute, 4,000-mile jaunt toward Kwajalein in the middle of

the Pacific.

But nine minutes into the flight, controllers on the ground lost contact with the HTV-2. The

culprit, according to Darpa’s Engineering Review Board ? “Higher-than-predicted yaw, which

coupled into roll, thus exceeding the available control capability at the time of the anomaly.”

In other words, the HTV wobbled too much. Rather than risking an out-of-control flight, the

bot self-destructed. On the bright side, according to a chipper Darpa release, the failed test

“demonstrated successfully the first-ever use of an autonomous flight-termination system.”

Continue Reading “Darpa: Now We Know Why Our Mach-20 Ship Crashed” »Tags: Air Force, DarpaWatch, HTV-2, hypersonic, Lockheed Martin, Oops

Post Comment   |   Comments (17)   |   Permalink

Darpa’s ‘Sim Tank’ Could Reboot Pentagon’s Arsenal

By David Axe    November 12, 2010  |   11:02 am  |   Categories: DarpaWatch

With the latest delays, it now seems likely the Joint Strike Fighter program will take 21 years

from concept to combat-readiness. And that’s all-too-typical for a major U.S. weapon

program; the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and the F-22 stealth jet took just as long. These

decades-long developments aren’t just a waste of time, effort, and cash. They can be self-

defeating. “When systems finally reach the users, the world has changed around them,” Bill

Sweetman warns at Ares. If the military isn’t careful, it could pour hundreds of billions of

dollars into weapons that are obsolete the day they enter service.

It’s for that reason that a small cadre of Air Force officers, including Lt. Col. Dan Ward,

advocated a new, “fast, inexpensive, simple and tiny” approach to buying weapons, aiming

to reduce 20-year development cycles to just three years by using mostly off-the-shelf

components. The “FIST” concept saw its first big success with the MC-12W spy plane,

which went from blueprint to combat in just 13 months.

Now the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency wants to do the same for Army

ground vehicles. Darpa’s Adaptive Vehicle Make initiative means to replace old-school,

metal-bending prototyping with new, speedy computer modeling taking a fraction of the

time. “We look forward to tackling some very challenging fundamental problems that, once

solved, offer the potential to truly revolutionize the way we make products in the defense

industry and beyond,” AVM manager Paul Eremenko said.

To jump-start the program, Darpa recently awarded contracts to 13 U.S. defense firms for

developing “meta-language” and “model-based design flow.” The result could be a sort of

tank-manufacturing version of the Sim line of video games. Call it Sim Tank.

Continue Reading “Darpa’s ‘Sim Tank’ Could Reboot Pentagon’s Arsenal” »Tags: Air Force, Army, DarpaWatch, Ground Vehicles, modeling, tanks, vehicles

Post Comment   |   Comments (11)   |   Permalink

Pentagon Readies New Ship-Killers for Pacific Showdown

By David Axe    November 11, 2010  |   3:43 pm  |   Categories: China

Pentagon planners were wary of China’s double-digit military-budget growth rates even

before the global economic crisis put the squeeze on America’s own defense investment.

Now the Chinese army’s growth continues while America’s flat-lines. That’s got the U.S.

military, especially the Navy, scrambling for new ideas.

The most hopeful is an emerging concept for mixing U.S. Navy ships and subs with Air

Force planes to form a tightly-knit, super-lethal, ship-killing force meant to counter

an increasingly powerful Chinese fleet. The Pentagon calls it “AirSea Battle ,” an homage to

NATO’s Cold War “AirLand Battle” concept that pioneered tactics for taking out thousands

of Soviet tanks with smart weapons. U.S. Secretary of Defense Bob Gates called the

classified AirSea Battle concept “encouraging.”

It seems AirSea Battle mostly involves better communications and command procedures for

integrating ships and planes into the same task forces. But there’s at least one new piece of

hardware: a new, more deadly anti-ship missile. On Wednesday, the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency awarded Lockheed Martin a 3-year, $160 million contract to

develop the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile. The goal is for LRASM to give Navy ships “the

ability to attack important enemy ships outside the ranges of the enemy’s ability to respond

with anti-ship missiles of their own.”

Continue Reading “Pentagon Readies New Ship-Killers for Pacific Showdown” »Tags: AirSea Battle, DarpaWatch, Eye on China, Lockheed Martin, Missiles, Navy

Post Comment   |   Comments (16)   |   Permalink

Learning Computers to Help Humans Scour Drone Footage

By David Axe    November 5, 2010  |   1:00 pm  |   Categories: DarpaWatch

In early 2010, Senior Airman Cassie McQuade was all alone in an isolated corner of

Bagram air field, NATO’s main base in Afghanistan. As the sole airman assigned to a team

of civilian contractors from Boeing subsidiary Insitu, it was McQuade’s job to analyze video

streams pumped into her trailer by the team’s fleet of low-flying ScanEagle drones used to

spot threats to Bagram. “The hardest part is determining what is suspicious and what we

are looking for,” she told me. The long, dark shape in a man’s arms could be a shovel — or

a rocket launcher. Men digging by the side of the road could be repairing a culvert or

planting a bomb. Telling the difference required training, practice … and intuition.

With more and more drone-provided video pouring into Pentagon servers — “24 years’

worth if watched continuously” just in 2009, according to The New York Times – the Air

Force in particular is struggling to train up enough analysts like McQuade to sift through it

all. Their job is made more difficult by the raw nature of most video feeds. Watching

untagged video is like “tuning in to a football game without all the graphics,” one industry

executive told The Times.

Now the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Pentagon’s fringe-science

agency, wants to teach computers to scan video just like the poor, over-worked human

analysts do. The Deep Learning program aims to “address [the] … data deluge using

machine-based perception.” In other words, computers that can make increasingly

sophisticated inferences based on visual patterns over time. The agency first kicked off the

project in the spring of 2009. Today, Stanford University, New York University, the

University of Montreal and NEC Labs of America are working with the agency on related

software and hardware.

Continue Reading “Learning Computers to Help Humans Scour Drone Footage” »Tags: A.I., Air Force, DarpaWatch, Drones, UAV, video

Post Comment   |   Comments (2)   |   Permalink

‘Invisible’ Material Can Now Fool Your Eyes By Noah Shachtman    November 4, 2010  |   4:40 pm  |   Categories: Science!

Don’t start picking out the pattern of your cloak, yet. But invisibility just became a whole lot

more likely.

Tech journalists and military dreamers have talked about real-life invisibility cloaks for a

while, and with good reason. With their specialized structures, so-called “metamaterials”

can bend light around objects, making ‘em disappear.

But you haven’t seen the likes of Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins training at Fort Bragg,

because the trick doesn’t work with visible light. Metamaterials warp things like infrared light

or terahertz waves, neither of which we can see in the first place. In other words, we could

still make out the “invisible” object with our own two eyes.

Or at least, that used to be the case. Physicists at the University of St. Andrews appear to

have made a breakthrough, however. They’ve created a metamaterial that really does work

in the “optical range,” the scientists note in the New Journal of Physics.

Not only did Andrea Di Falco and his research partners put together a metamaterial that

could bend visible light. They built it in a way that could lead to larger-scale manufacturing

— and real-world applications. Not just cloaks, but lenses made out of metamaterials that

can zoom to the micron level, making it possible to spot germs, chemical agents and even

DNA, using basically a pair of binoculars.

Continue Reading “‘Invisible’ Material Can Now Fool Your Eyes” »Tags: DarpaWatch, invisibility cloaks, metamaterials, Science!

Post Comment   |   Comments (19)   |   Permalink

Darpa: Fuse Nerves With Robot Limbs, Make Prosthetics Feel Real

By Katie Drummond    October 27, 2010  |   7:00 am  |   Categories: DarpaWatch

Controlling robotic limbs with your brain is just step one. The Pentagon eventually wants

artificial arms and legs to feel and perform just the same as naturally grown ones. Which

means step two is hooking up those prosthetics directly into severed nerves. That’ll allow

the wearer to detect subtle sensations, respond to the brain’s neural signals, move with

unprecedented agility, and “incorporat[e] the limb into the sense-of-self.”

Over the last decade, the Pentagon has made remarkable progress in creating life-like

prosthetic devices. And most of the advances are because of programs funded by Darpa,

the far-out military research agency that’s also behind this latest project, called Reliable

Peripheral Interfaces (RPI).

Already, Darpa has funded ventures like the DEKA Arm, which relies on a joystick-style

interface, and used “targeted muscle reinnervation surgery” for prosthetics that transmit

neural signals from a bundle of nerves in the chest. Darpa-funded researchers at Johns

Hopkins have even started human trials on theirModular Prosthetic Limb, which transmits

cues to an artificial limb using brain-implanted micro-arrays.

But the RPI program taps into key shortcomings that persist in even the most sophisticated

prosthetic devices. Existing neural-prosthetic interfaces aren’t sensitive enough to provide

myriad signals — prototypes currently transmit around 500 events a second — or offer

users a robust degree of freedom. Not to mention that current neural platforms have short

life spans and are tough to repair without invasive surgery, making them ill-suited to troops

and vets in their 20s.

So Darpa’s after a prosthetic that can record motor-sensory signals right from peripheral

nerves (those that are severed when a limb is lost) and then transmit responding feedback

signals from the brain. That means an incredibly sensitive platform, “capable of detecting

sufficiently strong motor-control signals and distinguishing them from sensory signals and

other confounding signals,” in a region packed tightly with nerves. Once signals are

detected, they’ll be decoded by algorithms and transmitted to the brain, where a user’s

intended movements would be recoded and transmitted back to the prosthetic.

Continue Reading “Darpa: Fuse Nerves With Robot Limbs, Make Prosthetics Feel Real” »Tags: Bizarro, DarpaWatch, Medic!, prosthetics, Science!

Post Comment   |   Comments (10)   |   Permalink

Feds Plot ‘Near Human’ Robot Docs, Farmers, Troops

By Katie Drummond    October 22, 2010  |   10:48 am  |   Categories: DarpaWatch

Robots are already vacuuming our carpets, heading into combat and assisting docs on

medical procedures. Get ready for a next generation of “near human” bots that’ll do a lot

more: independently perform surgeries, harvest our crops and herd our livestock, and even

administer drugs from within our own bodies.

Those are only a few of the suggested applications for robots in a massive new federal

research program. The military’s blue-sky research arm, Darpa, is pairing up with four other

agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the United States Department of

Agriculture, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Homeland Security, to

launch a major push that’d revolutionize robotic capabilities and put bots pretty much

everywhere, from hospitals to dude ranches to “explosive atmospheres.”

In a single mega-solicitation for small business proposals, the agencies note that robotics

technology is “poised for explosive growth,” thanks to rapid improvements in

microprocessing, algorithms and sensors. Of course, Darpa’s been behind much of the

progress. The agency has already launched programs to create a real-life C3PO, a bot that

can match human intellect and a four-legged BigDog robo-beast . Not to mention the

organization’s ongoing research into cognition and neural control, including efforts to map

monkey minds to yield neurally controlled prosthetics.

Now, other agencies want to capitalize on progress in robotics to transform their own fields.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is after “robotic applications to surgery,” as well as

“computerized therapist personalities [and] artificial intelligence capable of real time

monitoring” along with patient interaction and day-to-day care-taking tasks. And robots

won’t just be health care providers — the NIH is also interested in organ- and limb-

replacement robotics, including advanced prosthetics and “implantable smart robotics for

monitoring/drug delivery.”

Continue Reading “Feds Plot ‘Near Human’ Robot Docs, Farmers, Troops” »Tags: Bizarro, DarpaWatch, Drones, Ground robots, Science!

Post Comment   |   Comments (18)   |   Permalink

Total Nutrition Awareness: Darpa Wants to Track Troops’ Food 24/7

By Katie Drummond    October 13, 2010  |   10:54 am  |   Categories: DarpaWatch

Troops overindulging at the chow hall’s ice cream bar might not be able to conceal dietary

lapses from their higher ups for much longer. The Pentagon’s looking to keep tabs on troop

nutrition 24/7 , using “non-invasive or minimally invasive techniques” to track a series of

nutritional indicators on an ongoing basis.

Darpa, the Pentagon’s far-out research arm, is hosting a meeting of the minds for

nutritionists, doctors and developers, with the aim of creating easy-to-use gadgets that can

measure key dietary indicators. The agency’s “Point of Use Nutritional Diagnostic Devices

Workshop” will identify “the top 10 essential nutritional biomarkers,”  including antioxidants,

vitamins and metabolites, and potential methods to monitor them in real-time.

Of course, Darpa’s long been after super-charged troops. But the agency’s previous efforts,

especially their “Peak Soldier Performance” initiative, have been a lot loftier than this kind of

nutrition tracking. Those projects included a study on genetic variation and attempts at

manipulating mitochondria, the powerhouses of the body’s cells. But that research could

take years to transform troop performance, and the military’s already struggling with soldiers

more accustomed to video games and Taco Bell than wind sprints and salad bars.

Continue Reading “Total Nutrition Awareness: Darpa Wants to Track Troops’ Food 24/7″ »Tags: DarpaWatch, Military Life

Post Comment   |   Comments (13)   |   Permalink

Darpa Starts Sleuthing Out Disloyal Troops By Spencer Ackerman    October 11, 2010  |   3:25 pm  |   Categories: DarpaWatch

The military is scrambling to identify disgruntled or radicalized troops who pose a threat to

themselves or their buddies. So the futurists at Darpa are asking for algorithms to find and

pre-empt anyone planning the next Fort Hood massacre, WikiLeaks document dump or

suicide-in-uniform.

This counterintelligence-heavy effort isn’t Darpa’s typical push to create flying

Humvees or brainwave-powered prosthetic limbs. But the Pentagon’s far-out R&D team has

made other moves recently to hunt down threats from within.

The idea behind the Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales, or Adams, effort is to sift through

“massive data sets” to find the warning signs of looming homicide, suicide or other

destructive behavior. “The focus is on malevolent insiders that started out as ‘good guys.’

The specific goal of Adams is to detect anomalous behaviors before or shortly after they

turn,” the agency writes in its program announcement.

Currently, Darpa says, the Defense Department doesn’t actually know how “a soldier in

good mental health” actually comes to pose an “insider threat,” defined as “an already

trusted person in a secure environment with access to sensitive information and information

systems and sources.” (WikiLeaks, anyone?)

“When we look through the evidence after the fact, we often find a trail –- sometimes even

an ‘obvious’ one,” Darpa adds. “The question is can we pick up the trail before the fact,

giving us time to intervene and prevent an incident?  Why is that so hard?”

Adams is supposed to fill the breach. But what kind of tech would be necessary to detect

these anomalies? What sort of data actually represent worrisome anomalies, as opposed to

a soldier harmlessly venting steam?

Continue Reading “Darpa Starts Sleuthing Out Disloyal Troops” »Tags: ADAMS, CINDER, DarpaWatch, Fort Hood, WikiLeaks

Post Comment   |   Comments (39)   |   Permalink

« OLDER POSTS

 

Subscribe to WIREDRenewGive a GiftInternational Orders

Does Somalia’s New Pirate-Fighting Militia Stand a Chance? Pentagon’s Purchasers Get Their Own Video Games U.S. Should Go Commando in Afghanistan After 2014, Think Tank Urges U.S. Satellites, Ammo Aided Saudis in Border War Wanna Buy a World-Controlling Investment Firm? Al-Qaeda’s Latest Weapon: Poison Perfume Air Force on Secret Space Plane: Nothing to See Here, Move Along On Second Thought, Karzai Actually Loves Mercs Afghans Fume as Petraeus Ramps Up Air War Gallery: Inside the Secret Space Plane Landing  Danger Room

 

Af/Pak Air Force Army and Marines Bio Bizarro Blog Bidness Chem China

Search Danger Room

Crime and Homeland Security Daily Pentagon Jackpot Danger Room At The Movies DarpaWatch Drones Five for Fighting Gadgets and Gear Haiti Info War Iraq Israel Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Mercs Military Life Miscellaneous Navy Nukes Paper Pushers, Beltway Bandits, Politicians Rogue States Russia Science! Spies, Secrecy and Surveillance Tactics, Strategy and Logistics Terrorists, Guerillas, Pirates Weapons and Ammo o Chem Bio & Nukes

Africa Agony of A-Stan Ammo and Munitions  Bizarro Blog Bidness  Bomb

Squad Cash Rules Everything Around Me Chem-Bio  Cloak and

Dagger Crazy Ivans DarpaWatch Drones  Gadgets and Gear Ground

Vehicles Homeland Security Human Terrain Info War Iraq's Insanity Lasers

and Ray Guns Less-lethal Medic!  Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Mullah

Menace Nukes Paper Pushers & Powerpoint Rangers  Perils of

Pakistan Planes Planes, Copters, Blimps Politricks  Rogue

States Science!  Shhh !!!  Ships and Subs Space Strategery T is for

Terror Video Fix War UpdateLocuri de munca. Joburi.Locuri de munca gratuit pe email. Acum. -www.eJobs.ro

Terrorism ThreatSteganography used for planning, recruiting. Know the threat! - www.sarc-wv.com

Mine detectorsIn assortment Wholesale and retail - www.by.all-biz.info

Ads by Google

Editor: 

Noah Shachtman | 

E-mail Senior Reporter:

 Spencer Ackerman |

 E-mail

Reporter: 

Katie Drummond | 

Email Contributor:

 Nathan Hodge |

 E-mail

Contributor: 

Sharon Weinberger | 

E-mail Contributor:

 David Axe |

 E-mail

Contributor: 

David Hambling | 

E-mail Contributor:

 Nick Thompson |

 E-mail

Contributor: 

Jeffrey Lewis | 

E-mail Contributor:

 Jason Sigger |

 E-mail

Contributor: 

Kris Alexander | 

E-mail Contributor:

 Michael Tanji |

 E-mail

Contributor: 

Adam Rawnsley Contributor:

 Michael Peck |

 Email

Send us a tip

Subscription: Subscribe | Give   a   Gift  | Renew |International | Questions | Change   Address Quick Links:

 Contact Us |

 Sign In/Register  |Newsletter | RSS   Feeds  | Tech Jobs | Wired Mobile |FAQ | Site Map

Corrections | Sitemap | FAQ | Contact Us | Wired Staff | Advertising | Press Center | Subscription

Services | Newsletter | RSS Feeds 

Condé Nast Web Sites:

Webmonkey | Reddit | ArsTechnica | Details | Golf Digest | GQ | New Yorker

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                         

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (Revised 4/1/2009) and Privacy

Policy (Revised 4/1/2009).

Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved.

The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior

written permission of Condé Nast Digital.