ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2026
Design and evaluation of a bone-anchored, neurally-controlled knee prosthesis.
Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommercially-available microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees are unable to fully replicate the biomechanical function of the missing biological limb. While powered prostheses have the capacity to restore joint level kinetics, current systems rely on intrinsic control schemes that do not allow the user to volitionally modulate movement under neural commands. This limitation may compromise functional performance and hinder prosthetic embodiment, the sense that the device is part of the user’s body. In a case study on one test participant, we evaluate the functional and perceptual benefits of a bone-anchored, neurally-controlled knee prosthesis by comparing it to the participant’s microprocessor-controlled prosthesis.
methodsWe conducted a within-subject study on an individual with a transfemoral amputation, with an osseointegrated implant and surgically reconstructed agonist–antagonist muscle pairs. We tested a neurally-controlled powered knee and conventional microprocessor knee across a set of activities, including seated volitional control tasks, sit-to-stand transitions, squatting, level-ground walking, stair ascent, and uninstructed standing. Performance metrics included knee kinematics, prosthesis-generated mechanical power, and functional outcomes such as gait speed, stair ascent time, and weight-bearing symmetry derived from ground reaction forces. Functional mobility and control were complemented by self-reported embodiment, assessed through a questionnaire targeting agency, ownership, and body representation.
resultsThe neurally-controlled prosthesis enabled intuitive and responsive control. Compared to the subject’s prescribed prosthesis, the prosthesis yielded improved temporal gait symmetry during walking (symmetry index: 0.93 vs. 0.59, with 1 indicating perfect stance time symmetry), increased prosthetic-side weight-bearing during sit-to-stand and squatting, and successful execution of a step-over-step stair ascent strategy—an outcome not achievable with the subject’s prescribed device. Embodiment scores were consistently higher with the neurally-controlled prosthesis compared to the prescribed device across multiple domains, including agency, ownership and body representation.
conclusionsThis study is the first to directly compare a prescribed microprocessor knee with a bone-anchored, neurally-controlled powered prosthesis. By combining osseointegration, surgically reconstructed agonist–antagonist muscle pairs, and powered actuation, the system improved gait symmetry, greater prosthetic-side loading, and step-over-step stair ascent. These results demonstrate the novelty and promise of integrating surgical and mechatronic innovations to restore both functional mobility and embodied control after transfemoral amputation.
trial registrationThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at MIT (Protocol No. 2503001589).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.