Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42499420›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Who Controls the Prosthetic Leg? Voluntary Control Beyond the Microprocessor Knee.

Mitsunori Toda

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mitsunori TodaOrthopedic Surgery, Rehabilitation Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Rehabilitation Center Central Hospital, Kobe, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microprocessor-controlled knees (MPKs) have meaningfully advanced the safety and confidence of many transfemoral prosthesis users, yet a persistent clinical paradox remains: improved device intelligence does not automatically translate into greater everyday activity or full functional recovery. This editorial argues that the value of an advanced prosthetic leg is realized not when the device assumes control on the user's behalf, but when it is coupled with the user's own voluntary control and human-device coordination. Drawing on evidence that objective activity does not consistently increase after MPK provision, that hip strength alone poorly predicts walking and balance, and that attention to the prosthesis increases with use, I propose that rehabilitation should invest in the human control loop as deliberately as in device technology. The microprocessor knee serves here as the representative case for a broader principle that may plausibly extend to microprocessor feet, hip disarticulation components, and powered limbs, though this extension is offered as a hypothesis for future investigation rather than an evidence-based conclusion. My organizing proposition is that, in the age of intelligent prostheses, the human remains the origin of control.

Indexed as

body schemaembodimentgaithuman-device coordinationlower limb prosthesismicroprocessor-controlled kneemotor learningprosthetic rehabilitationtransfemoral amputationvoluntary motor control

Identifiers

PMID42499420
PMCPMC13399592

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.