Is European (EU, ERC, Horizon, Cordis) funded research into prosthetic arm title related subjects getting, like, anywhere, like, at all with regard to physically demanding work use? [54,7 Million EU in total, TL;DR: no]

On the website of EU-sponsored “research into prosthetic arms” (ERC, Horizon) [link], one can find a range of in-te-res-ting1 projects.

These are in-te-res-ting, particularly, because they do not, from my direct, hand/s on, applied and I would say very widely invested experience, constitute true innovation, and not true developments in any truly useful fashion – most definitely not, from where I am standing. Clearly, I am regarding this from my personal view – but if you believe I am the only person that is affected by an apparent lack of wide support for what I call useful prosthetic arm part, then that is that.

And where am I standing on that? Here.

One could weep about how much money is wasted there, weep all day and all night. Or just see if there would be any reason to conduct a review, discussion, or consideration of these works in directions that defy rational understanding at least from a view of a real work delivering real prosthetic arm real user such as myself.

Because in essence, all these forays and all the activism shown here leave the real user of a real prosthetic arm used for real work stranded. No one to look out for us. We are alone. And from there it is survival of the fittest. The current research and development focus directly impacts the real users at real work forefronts in that they leave us stranded. And we solve our own problems. The in-te-resting thing there is that private companies that truly are private are certainly free to play with ideas however they please. But once we look at taxpayer money, not private industries money on the free market, that goes into insurances that pay for overpriced useless junk prostheses, once we look at taxpayer money that goes into or is routed towards gigantic research projects such as ERC or Horizon, then this becomes a res publica.

Then who gets to play gatekeeper of taxpayer money becomes key. If anything it is clear that in relation to prosthetic arm research, the ones that do NOT get to play gatekeeper are real users with real work performed with real prosthetic arms. So in other words, I am convinced that we are looking at a gigantic waste of money.

Background

What we can reasonably expect in 2022

Any technical solutions that a truly innovative development of prosthetic arm development and research has to, must, cannot wiggle out not to deliver, with this being 2022, also contain these:

  • a cable control that exceeds what my own development currently delivers [link], which in essence is a state-of-the-art performance of my design, covering beauties in outcome/endpoints such as:
    • (1) repair-free low resistance cable control over at least 9 months with forces similar to a TRS Jaws XFS at maximal spring setting and worn 16 h per day 7 days a week,
    • (2) no real risk of frequent skin rash [linkl],
    • (2) graceful degradation into non-function, and
    • (3) a repair possibility for me to replace the whole cable setup within about 1/2 h single-handedly using affordable ubiquitous parts (no oil, hydraulics, proprietary designs, and materials, etc);
  • control reliability that is around or in excess of five sigma [link]; current research is nowhere near that, not even in terms of several powers of ten – so more work is needed indeed, it is just not done;
  • better grip mechanics [link];
  • better appearance to allow arm amputees to actually blend in [link];

When trying a more detached view, I would say, nice for the researcher they got to play with their topics, but pity for those people that paid for all that research expecting any different, where, again, yet another time, repeatedly, nothing, nix, zero, zilch, fuck-all, was built, for the real salt-of-the-earth hard lifting liters-sweating worker in need of a truly robust truly comfortable truly reliable and truly affordable prosthetic arm that helps truly reduce asymmetry and related overuse.

To re-cap for all those that are not aware of the requirements in 2022 (or since the last 40 years):

  • a prosthetic arm first and foremost serves to balance out overuse and asymmetry [link] – and in order to be able to do that it needs to be worn always, and so for that to happen it must not break all the time, repairs must be available at all times and at low cost, so best the user can do them himself, prosthetic arm parts need to be robust and sturdy in their make, prosthesis must provide a really robust control function with a low error rate [link] [link], and it must be particularly fit to serve in all those conditions that really make overuse happen, which are what one might call hazardous work [link]; so first and foremost, we are looking at something that really works well, particularly when the loads are really strong, function wise; if the arm derails already all by itself or after somewhere between minutes, hours or days, then we are not looking at viable solutions and when it cannot be worn at 30 deg outside [link] or under a protective suit [link] where profuse sweating is the norm, then we are not looking at viable solutions either – obviously [link case study];
  • a prosthetic arm secondly has to look really good; for that, so far, no sufficiently hard tests exist, but an ‘appearance test’ has been proposed [link], with so far no prosthetic solutions anywhere comply to that proposed appearance test; in fact we are not even close.

They sure do not present anything remotely useful from my very well-established personal user view.

They apparently spent, however, some neat little 54,7 Million Euros, just to establish, that not a single one of EU-funded research projects on the subject of prosthetic arms was providing the next hazmat/protective suit-suitable, risk-free, super comfortable, and very reliable innovation device? Is “appalling” even appropriate as a word for this, or should we keep calling this in-te-res-ting?

Facts about prosthetic arms in the context of real work

Really, myoelectric arms are junk and body-powered arms win (Alex Roy: check; Cybathlon 2016: check; Cybathlon 2020:  check). You are cool to dismiss this if it is just tongue-in-cheek or needlessly argumentative. But, is it?

(1) Bodypowered is better for real work; sweat resistance, useful torque resistance
(2) Uncomfortable suspension is a major factor
(3) Precision grip before all other grips that missing most for arm amputees
(4) Better parts because repairs and obsolete engineering are an everyday problem, so far unsolved
(5) Appearance test approximated or solved
(6) Industrial performance levels/error rates (around five sigma)

Project overview of HORIZON projects regarding prosthetic arms

Title Ref EURO Physical demanding work (1) More comfortable suspension (2) Better precision grip (3) More robust parts (4) Appearance test approximated or solved (5) Industrial error rates (6) Comment Coordinator Link
Dexterous Transradial Osseointegrated Prosthesis with neural control and sensory feedback (link)
DeTOP  Grant agreement ID: 687905 4260521 No. No. No. No. No. No. Too far out. Surgery, risky implants. Not on track subject/paper wise. SCUOLA SUPERIORE DI STUDI UNIVERSITARI E DI PERFEZIONAMENTO S ANNA
Intuitive Natural Prosthesis Utilization (link) 2
INPUT Grant agreement ID: 687795

Project duration: four years!

3835585 No. No. No. No. No. No. Private enterprise, useless advances Otto Bock
Micro and Nano Engineered Bi-Directional Carbon Interfaces for Advanced Peripheral Nervous System Prosthetics and Hybrid Bionics (link)
MERIDIAN Grant agreement ID 280778 3780000 No. No. No. No. No. No. Too far out. Surgery, risky implants.
A 3D printed, affordable myoelectrical prosthetic hand of personalizeable size for optimal comfort and functionality (link)
Helping Hand Grant agreement ID: 805900 1431062 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link], private enterprise. Hy5 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/805900/reporting
Adams Hand (link)
Adams hand  Grant agreement ID: 886229 50000 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link], private enterprise. BIONIT LABS SRL
Nano-scale neuromuscular implants (link)
MERIDIAN Grant agreement ID 280778 3780000 No. No. No. No. No. No. Too far out. Surgery, risky implants.
Advanced sensor-based design and development of wearable prosthetic socket for amputees (link)
SocketSense  Grant agreement ID: 825429 3898591 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]
Digitalization of prosthetic socket personalization workflows trough artificial intelligence (link)
DigiSocket  Grant agreement ID: 955862 118098 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link], private enterprise. Hy5
Synergy-based Open-source Foundations and Technologies for Prosthetics and RehabilitatiOn (link)
SoftPro  Grant agreement ID: 688857 7440026 No. No. No. No. No. No. No useful results
Feedback control for prosthetics (link)
myosens  Grant agreement ID: 286208 1728666 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]
INPUT (link)
INPUT Grant agreement ID: 687795 2706246 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]
HelpingHAND (link)
HelpingHAND   Grant agreement ID: 805900 1431062 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]
Understanding neural coding of touch as enabling technology for prosthetics and robotics (link)
NeuTouch  Grant agreement ID: 813713 4108695 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]
Optimising myoelectric prostheses (link)
AMYO, Grant agreement ID: 251555 1152406 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link], private enterprise. Low recognition rates. Otto Bock
Hands for Autonomous aNd Dexterous grasping (link)
HAND,  Grant agreement ID: 101029946 183473 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]
Natural Integration of Bionic Limbs via Spinal Interfacing (link)
Natural BionicS  Grant agreement ID: 810346 9984021 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]. Not on track subject wise – no spinal interface was built. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/810346/reporting
A Bidirectional MyoKinetic Implanted Interface for Natural Control of Artificial Limbs (link)
MYKI  Grant agreement ID: 679820 1475269 No. No. No. No. No. No. Too far out. Surgery, risky implants. Too much error.
Can humans embody augmentative robotics technology? (link)
EmbodiedTech  Grant agreement ID: 715022 1499405 No. No. No. No. No. No. No relevant insights for everyday work and life https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/715022
Development of a CYBERnetic HAND prosthesis (link)
CYBERHAND   Grant agreement ID: IST-2001-35094 1688000 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]
Development of a new method to increase the degrees of freedom of myoelectric upper-limb prostheses and construction of a new neuromuscular model to improve their controllability (link)
ADCOMP  Grant agreement ID: 25056 151854 No. No. No. No. No. No. Myoelectric junk [link]
Prosthetic arm related projects over the last few years or so See Above 54702980 None of these. None of these. None of these. None of these. None of these. None of these. [link]

Conclusion

I see zero gains for real useful rehabilitation of real work providing prosthetic arm users. Instead, classism and other nonsensical value systems lead to a class of researchers that truly live a parasitic life far from real work applications of prosthetic arm development. Not only does a society, one that thinks that this is anywhere close to cool, very explicitly spit and shit on the true needs of hard-working real work providing prosthetic arm users. They express maximal disdain for such, it could not be more explicit. They even double down by spending close to 55 million Euro on junk. Even not doing a thing would have been sufficient to let us know, that our work and efforts mean zero for them. No, they even kick after it, they stab after it, they make it more painful because of the waste being not a meager 1 million, not a tiny 5 million, not even a poor devoid hollow 10 or 20 million – no, but a close to 55 million Euro amount that is truly wasted for real working arm amputees. That is not “a pity”, it is not even just “a scandal”. It is far, far worse. We cannot talk with each other. We are living, truly, on disjunct planets. Those people are in essence aliens, intruders, predators, enemies of a democratic state that has social need to rehabilitate arm amputees. That is about where it’s at.

But we should maybe have a closer look in the upcoming times.

  • Who reviewed all that junk stuff? Were the reviewers paid, were they given anonymity from the Horizon board? Were they truly free to state their honest view? Usually, reviewers that want to be invited again to perform, again, free unpaid work out of hours, are far from free. They must please their order givers at all times. If they write “a recognition rate of 95% is junk for real use” they will not get invited again for reviews. This is funny as they usually are not even paid, leave alone given public recognition. I would start looking there.
  • Who decided to not ask real hard-working prosthetic arm users? I mean, someone must have written down and decided to explicitly not do that. What a hard work despising subject was that? Can we know? Do they keep it a secret? Why?
  • Who believes that just and exactly that type of “managing” research benefits the hard-working prosthetic arm user such as me? Can we learn just how these people come to build or harbor such a belief? Will there be workshops to avoid this type of  problem in the future?
  • How can such an utter waste of massive money be prevented in the future?

Footnotes

  1. Here, clearly used as euphemism.
  2. From their report: (..) “The time frame of the project was not sufficient to get reliable and robust solutions for all the goals the project wanted to achieve. For example, in hardware development the team aimed at devising a completely new integrated electrode approach, which proved to be more complicated than anticipated.(…) We have generated over 10 iterations of the electrode liner materials, material combinations and manufacturing techniques, tested a large number of machine learning algorithms and generated three new PC-based rehabilitation games for patient training. (..) ” according to Professor Amsüss.

Cite this article:
Wolf Schweitzer: swisswuff.ch - Is European (EU, ERC, Horizon, Cordis) funded research into prosthetic arm title related subjects getting, like, anywhere, like, at all with regard to physically demanding work use? [54,7 Million EU in total, TL;DR: no]; published 20/03/2022, 14:20; URL: https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=12353.

BibTeX 1: @MISC{schweitzer_wolf_1738965870, author = {Wolf Schweitzer}, title = {{swisswuff.ch - Is European (EU, ERC, Horizon, Cordis) funded research into prosthetic arm title related subjects getting, like, anywhere, like, at all with regard to physically demanding work use? [54,7 Million EU in total, TL;DR: no]}}, month = {March}, year = {2022}, url = {https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=12353}

BibTeX 2: @MISC{schweitzer_wolf_1738965870, author = {Wolf Schweitzer}, title = {{Is European (EU, ERC, Horizon, Cordis) funded research into prosthetic arm title related subjects getting, like, anywhere, like, at all with regard to physically demanding work use? [54,7 Million EU in total, TL;DR: no]}}, howpublished = {Technical Below Elbow Amputee Issues}, month = {March}, year = {2022}, url = {https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=12353} }