Peter Kyberd and the Cybathlon Advisory Board [commentary]

It is the culture of the intensely technophilic – even those who write of techno-dystopias and apocalypses are enrapt in a love-hate relationship with technology. The borders between the four dominions – those of scientists, writers, readers and science-fiction fans – are hopelessly blurred, with countless individuals holding joint citizenships. Graham Collins (2001) Shamans of Small – Nanofiction. in: Scientific American 09/2001, p:78. — With regard to this quote, it can be said that not everyone actually holds a citizenship, some people seem homeless (anonymous, 2024). 

Janet and John

Critical discussion of this blog post by Janet and John!

Peter Kyberd and the Cybathlon

Always fascinating to see how people package the past in what they seem to believe is an attempt to deliver a better future. I do not take myself out of this, I also like to review the past.

One of the more entertaining people to fill the ranks of the academic otherworld, that other world, where no prosthetic arms that serve real work use are ever considered or created, is Peter Kyberd.

His relationship with Cybathlon [extensive report about the first 2016 event here] is interesting, while he was not even on their first lineup of advisories. Nevertheless, in his book [1], he starts out by claiming:

In 2012 a group in Switzerland led by Robert Reiner announced they would be holding a competition [1].

The man he tries to mention is actually trying to call himself “Robert Riener”, not “Reiner”, as you can try out for yourself at no extra cost [link].

Peter Kyberd added this idea:

Robert felt: “Why do the Americans always
sell their research so good, we can also do it. We have good technology but we don’t sell it”. Being Swiss he thought less of tower blocks and more of the natural resources Switzerland is famous for: He first considered getting a prosthetic leg user to walk up a mountain. However, concerns over the reliability of the weather jeopardising the event meant the idea moved to an indoor venue [1].

Nope again.

Robert Riener is a German / Bavarian, and he started his studies at the TU (Technical University) in Munich. Last time I heard he did not speak a lick of Swiss German either. That is fine, don’t get me wrong. But we have to assume that Peter Kyberd must have talked to a Swiss man by name of Robert Reiner, not a German man by name of Robert Riener. So, things start to become “virtual” real fast here, as it seems. Not a surprise though, seeing as if Peter Kyberd is an American1.

How, though, is Professor Riener considering the aspect that there was anything, anything at all, regarding prosthetic arm research, that the Swiss “had”, leave alone “had to sell”? How is sales in prosthetics a thing before considering legal compliance, which then wouldn’t allow overadvertising, as example? At some stage in the next 100 years, if ever we live that long, I will have to search the online databases, see what he could have meant, see what “the Swiss” had to offer and sell in the realm of prosthetic arms. Beats me though.

An interesting claim that Peter Kyberd lays down is:

[The Cybathlon] aimed to raise the standards of the profession through a series of competitions for prosthetic arms, legs, [etc.], with the fastest in each category being crowned champion [1].

Nope.

Not the aim. Not a goal that was reached either.

The Cybathlon was not created in an aim to raise the standards of “the profession”.

To begin with, there isn’t one.

There is not one profession that covers what today is carried out as an extended role-play about prosthetic arms – what we have, is an assortment of different people and their fields, none of which provide a full overlap with the actual requirements of an arm amputee – if any. And there also is no standard, but that’s a different problem. Most importantly, the overlap is not extensive and certainly nothing to overly joy over. So to submit, to smuggle under, to propose, that “there is a profession” (hear, hear) that “has standards” (hear, hear!) that even can be “raised” (ho, ho, ho!) is a subtle but powerful lie. After all, the author, Peter Kyberd, is an academic researcher, and their standards are to write and to pass peer review, which means, that people of a similar degree of acumen and knowledge (reread above if must) check if they think that what he wrote is good to be published. Any paper is good if it passes peer review and any hardware build has to perform once, a single time, when it is presented and videoed. Then it can be safely abandoned and a next prototype can be built. That is academic research in a nutshell. Not “the profession”.

As amputees, we get tons of assertions, promises, shmomises and claims, alright, but you can “smear the notion of standards onto your leg” (chasch der as Bei schmierä).

As one tiny example, I had to come up with various ways to get my prosthetic arm set up usefully robust myself (e.g., nuts, cable mount, …) so if anything, no one, not one of many professions, not the prosthetists, not the manufacturers, most certainly not the academic researcheres, had even simple manufacturing standards leave alone parts I could buy and use. With that, I am saying that even for basic aspects, there just are no standards. You could start considering CE norms if must be and have a field day, sure [link]. But there was nothing to raise really, in terms of standards, as far as I see. Conforming to existing standards would be great, but they are light years away there.

The aim — at least when Cybathlon was created — certainly was not to fairly and evenly compare real prosthetic arms, or, to foster research and development as such. So no wonder that did not happen over the last 8 years either.

Its original purpose and aim was a different one.

As we can derive from much interpersonal verbal archeology and from the public record/internet, the Cybathlon much rather was created to (1) put forward a media and freak show spectacle in a situation where a national research project, NCCR Robotics, clearly was not just failing, but hadn’t really ever started out, in particular with regard to prosthetic arm research [link] and to have that freak show (Cybathlon, that is [link]) distract everyone from the sad realities of all that wasted research, and, (2) to implement in the public’s brain that the researchers’ preferred toys (myoelectric prostheses are junk from my own applied experience [link]) are somehow better for below elbow amputees than body-powered prostheses. As that, the effort is to be regarded as noble since also the EU has serious issues trying to define research that isn’t junk from the very outset, at least from my demanding user view [link]. They all ride the same dead horse, live like parasites off publically funded research and continue their attitudes.

As new research shows[2], “myoelectric multiple degree of freedom (multi-DOF) prosthesis use was associated with lower extent of Prosthesis Adoption, compared to body-powered prosthesis use”. That is not a surprise – a surprise would be, how could we have known that for over a decade? How is it I saw that over 15 years ago and you did not?

Notably, and assumedly with the goal of showing just how academic research into myoelectric arms isn’t junk, the Cybathlon claims to employ tests such as the clothespin test; this was first mentioned in context of prosthetic arm control where it served to demonstrate simultaneous gripper and wrist control 2; instead, however, Peter Kyberd figured it was useful to evaluate amputees compensatory trunk motions [5] 3. Really capturing and evaluating trunk motion wasn’t always easy, as one can assume, so that was abandoned and the Clothespin Relocation Test was re-branded as general performance test [6]. After that, the popular use of the Clothespin Relocation Test seems to have mainly been to expose limb positioning problems in myoelectric prostheses, for which however also other tests were already sufficient [link]. This is just one of these tasks for the Cybathlon Prosthetic Arm Race; other contentious choices are jar lids to be opened whereas no scientifically robust basis exists for these [link]. Any technically fair or orthopedically relevant testing logically cannot have been the basis for the Cybathlon aim — which brings us back to the ultimate in prosthetic arm reality user experience: what really drives the whole subject/tag of “prosthetic arms” is the mode of “survival of the fittest” [link]. That includes me, other amputees, manufacturers, prosthetists, developers, also physical therapists, or even academic researchers. Everyone gets to run for their output.

It is an all-out no holds barred struggle, also for meaning, and public approval of the research focus occupied regressively, and almost exclusively, with a permanent clinging to the old cold war wounds of the west [link], whereas the various differently individual realities hold their own individual vulnerabilities.

Normally, I don’t care about using clothespins. Clothes are hung as they are using gravity as tool. But, there you go, TRS Prehensor.

But we digress.

The true aim of the Cybathlon also with regard to prosthetic arms is not even guesswork, even though just guesswork gets us to understand its profound lack of scientific or rehabilitative approach – it was spelled out in the original Cybathlon 2016 rule sheets correctly and actually. How could I have delayed you for so long. How could I!

These original Cybathlon rule sheets explicitly stated a mission statement or aim: the Cybathlon was specifically created to show off the capabilities of novel over established conventional technology.

I could have worn the best body powered prosthesis in the world and the specific task, the aim that Professor Robert Riener specifically set out for, was to specifically make that look bad in the light of what he called novel technology, as synonym for myoelectric prostheses.

As the favorite toy for academic researchers was and still is the myoelectric control, and, as they never were, or, are, getting anywhere [link] [link], with increasingly harsh user critique [link], they must have felt that it was time to have themselves a bit of a freak show circus [link].

Simply a distraction, by elevation of oneself, and by circus-horsing the amputee, a simple maneuver to burn this power relationship into the brains of anyone that cares to watch and not reflect.

The relevant test rule to allow insight into the aim of Cybathlon was this:

The rules of the competition should be designed in such way that the design of the novel technology gives the pilot an advantage over a pilot that would theoretically use a comparable but less advanced or conventional assistive technology“ [link].

Furthermore, we find out that Peter Kyberd suggested some more motives:

What struck Reiner [sic!], like others in the rehabilitation field, is that there was quite a disjoint between the solutions engineers and clinicians had proposed and the real problems on the ground. Reiner [sic!] developed a long-term aim to try and create a way to get the two groups to talk together [1].

At that time in 2013 and up to now actually, reality of prosthetic arm parts could not been perceived as anyone trying to urgently get anyone to talk that wasn’t already talking.

I am not sure whether many clinicians as in ‘clinical doctors’ are interested in prosthetic arms, never met one in person. Let us forget these for a moment as they don’t build things, they don’t ‘propose solutions’, hell, they don’t even know their way around neck pain or skin rashes (if you think that is wrong, put a comment describing how you know what’s up with these). So more importantly, who are ‘engineers’? How do they get to ‘propose solutions’?

Real engineers are only those that build prosthetic arms that also work for real work, they are rare, and almost none of these ever work at a University. So Peter Kyberd cannot possibly have referred to these. Manufacturers usually don’t talk, they just try to sell stuff (if at all [link]), so from a functional user view, they probably could do with some proper engineering.

Users? Yeah, want to consider talking to users?

But the problem isn’t that we all don’t talk. Everyone who had something to say was talking, always, also then already, no doubt, everyone at their level. Listening and understanding is the problem.

For a few years I had a number of unexpected international phone calls, talking to all sorts of people. Some were very important talks.

As I am interested primarily in my own prosthetic setup (don’t we all have our navel to look at first), these were very important talks with the difference to the subject matter at hand here that my phone talks and mails entailed products that directly benefit many other users.

The problem that is hinted at in Peter Kyberd’s claim was and is different: from many own direct interactions across the scene of relevant researchers and developers, I knew that they weren’t not talking. They were always chatting, like birds on a roof, about anything and everything.

The real problem was, and still is, that almost no one that participates in the extended role-play surrounding prosthetic arms is an actual engineer. An engineer, what is it?

“Indeed, there lies the integrity of technical craft: with gadgets, results are not negotiable. The clear, cool beauty of this kind of work is that in the last analysis, it doesn’t matter where you went to school, or what letters come after your name, or whom you know, or how you negotiate; what does matter is that you either get the gadget to work, or you don’t. Bottom line, end of story.” (Fiddling with Gadgets, by Terence Dyke 4 and Paul Smolen)

A further interesting claim by Peter Kyberd is this beauty:

The competition [Cybathlon] was designed by a panel of experts and users. The biggest challenge was to find tasks that were relevant, challenging enough for competitors, and interesting enough for spectators [1].

Nope. No experts. And no (real) users that were anywhere on their lists or sheets: I took the liberty to list the current experts and users involved in the Cybathlon creation/setup now (below); it was not much different back then.

They never listed/acknowledged people I would ever call actual experts, or actual users, in context of prosthetic arms that deliver function at a real work level.

The hope that experts and users that really go to the limits of what technology can offer and what users can achieve was never even approached, leave alone fulfilled.

But: relevant tasks were never an aim.

Spectators were the goal, and, making a spectacle, that was the aim. And making novel technology look good, that definitely was the aim. Not a sports like fair comparison that makes sense from a real world view – only the appearance, suggestion, notion, taint, whiff, idea of that, not the actual real world aspects.

As the text further elaborates,

The arm competition is perhaps the toughest to make valid and interesting. The Track was a diverse set of manipulation tasks. Competitors needed to undertake various day-to-day activities such as putting a screw fitting light bulb into a lamp stand (…) 

Yes, this was certainly the most non-sensical of the tasks: having to screw in a light bulb using the prosthesis [link]. Neither is it actually ever done – we all use our biological own hand for that. Nor is that ever necessary. It is not even advised as the danger of doing so outweighs the benefits.

The text regarding Cybathlon in [1] overall is relevant as it shows us how Peter Kyberd thinks about prosthetic arm technology. As advisor for Cybathlon Prosthetic Arm race, he is correctly categorized as ZZZ (below). One example why that is a correct categorization is how he cites Mona Hichert without apparent critique in this paragraph:

As the cable is pulled by a harness on the shoulders of the operator it is uncomfortable for the operator to generate this force, especially to do so repeatedly [191]. (…) The cable was pulled by a harness across the top of other arm and this  pressure tends to cut off the blood supply or compromise the nerves in that arm.

Peter Kyberd cites Hichert [7], whose study cohort consisted of people that (with 1 exception) were not at all habituated to body-powered arms, and that apparently used a wrongly setup Figure-9/cable setup, in order to conclude that in essence, equipping people that never liked crappy body-powered arm builds with crappy body-powered arm builds would cause a bad experience. D’oh. Have I ever seen a biased approach.

Obviously, figure 9 harnesses are an ill-devised prosthetic control option that have their drawbacks, but a prosthetic arm focusing professor might have known better. Modern user-based developments have left these considerable shortcomings far behind [8] [link], whereas I am obviously right by stating that this approach would require an actual understanding of technical aspects combined with actual skin in the game. 

Cybathlon 2024 and the actual people behind it

A look into the people behind Cybathlon by 2024 where I rate these dimensions:

  • Having own skin in real prosthetic arm development for real own work, activity and life as evidenced by available past activities and demonstration: A yes Z no
  • Proven track of successful own designs and builds and developments of devices that implement or enable real work or real sports/activity related use with either well declared physical limitation documentation or clearly surpassing features: A yes Z no
  • Being an arm amputee that wears a prosthetic arm not just for show/parading around, but for real work and for real efforts in sports and activity as evidenced by activity and prosthesis build: A yes Z no

As this, I (as example) would classify as an AAA. As we are obviously in the business of mutually adverse idiosyncratic ratings, just as the Cybathlon tries to rate technologies, this certainly stands. 

We have our own builds, and they have proven to be acceptable and useful across a few dimensions now.

Why aren’t the ETH and Cybathlon any better than a measly arm amputee such as me? How do they not leverage any skills and knowledge?

The answer is simple, poor people, skill and knowledge management, with relation to the claimed subject matter (i.e., fostering research for prosthetic arms for a user benefit, etc.). The actually claimed aspects – looking down on amputees, while sitting in an arena – is perfectly enacted [link], based on deeply engrained values and academic dreams [link]. Usually that comes from an environment where true skill and knowledge is seen as aggression, and not tolerated well, which tends to be indicative of peculiar personality characteristics, all the while an amputee by definition can never be competent [link, link].

So in essence we are dealing with a bunch of people who probably never were up for that particular job they claimed they were doing. No surprise they never actually improved anything, which was not hard to notice. That was never that goal. The goal, much rather, must have been to create academic activism and diversions to show how, in this post-barbarian society, is king in defining words and concepts [link]. It is not about amputees, but their/our place in society.

This overview of people involved in the definition and organization of Cybathlon Prosthetic Arm Race should conclusively answer the question why Cybathlon cannot possibly contribute anything to the improvement of real prosthetic arm technology for real work / use applications that are clearly physically demanding: they simply never even had the people for it. No hands, no chocolate –  and no people, no solutions/ideas. 

From Cybathlon website (14.02.2024) [link]:

Organisation committee:

  • Roland Sigrist Co-Head of CYBATHLON, Head of Competition & Finances [linkZZZ
  • Anni Kern Co-Head of CYBATHLON, Head of Communications & Events [linkZZZ
  • Charles Bara Marketing and Communications Manager [linkZZZ [blocked me on LinkedIn even, which is a pity as he could learn from my posts]
  • Kilian Baur Head of Technology [linkZZZ
  • Sara Burstin Administration and Distribution Manager [linkZZZ
  • Anne Conti-Mauchamp Participant Coordinator and Event Support ZZZ
  • Mihailo Djuric Apprentice [link] ZZZ
  • Nina Kollegger Head of CYBATHLON @school  [link] ZZZ
  • Tim Lenke Marketing and Communications Manager [link] ZZZ
  • Marionna Münger Competition & Science Manager  [link] ZZZ
  • Philipp Ott Software Developer  [link] ZZZ
  • Tobias Schifferle Expert Didactics CYBATHLON @school  [link] ZZZ
  • Tamina Scholtysik Competition Manager  [link] ZZZ
  • Katja Stoffels Head of Teams, Risk Management, Legal [link] ZZZ
  • Flurin Wasescha Support Engineering CYBATHLON and CYBATHLON @school
  • Chiara Basla Head of Discipline LEG [linkZZZ
  • Felix Erb Head of Discipline ROB [linkZZZ
  • Adrian Esser Head of Discipline ARM [link] ZZZ
  • Giulia Amos Head of Discipline VIS ZZZ
  • Yong Kuk Kim Head of Discipline FES ZZZ
  • Ingrid Odermatt Head of Discipline BCI ZZZ
  • Michael Sommerhalder Head of Discipline EXO ZZZ
  • Laura Mayrhuber Head of Discipline WHL ZZZ
  • Verena Klamroth-Marganska Head of Medical Affairs ZZZ
  • Giovanni Schiboni AI Advisor ZZZ
  • Anna Knill Head of Jury Award ZZZ

Der Strategische Rat des CYBATHLON setzt sich aus acht stimmberechtigten Mitgliedern zusammen. Mitglieder sind:

  • Robert Riener (Professor), Präsident, ZZZ [link]
  • Roger Gassert (Professor), Vize-​Präsident, ZZZ  [link]
  • Jürg Brunnschweiler (Chief of Staff to the President of ETH Zurich), ZZZ
  • Christoph Joho (Meeting Direktor Weltklasse Zürich), ZZZ
  • Patrick Magyar (Unternehmer), ZZZ
  • Joe Manser (Gemeinderat Zürich), ZZZ
  • Peter Wolf (Senior Scientist), ZZZ  [link]

CYBATHLON wird zudem durch folgende Personen massgeblich unterstützt:

  • Sarah Springman (ehemaliger Rektorin der ETH Zürich) ZZZ
  • Frank Bodin (Werber) ZZZ
  • Kyu Jin Cho (Professor) ZZZ [some gripper builds, but no real life relevant hard work enabling prostheses demonstrated]  [link]
  • Michel Fornasier (Give Children a Hand) ZZZ [MF is an upper limb different person, but no demonstrated own skin in the game for real work related prosthetic development or use, no real effort related really useful parts developments or builds]  
  • Heinz Frei (Parathlet) ZZZ  [link]
  • Hugh Herr (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • René Huber (Stadtpräsident Kloten) ZZZ
  • Jongbae Kim (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • Corine Mauch (Stadtpräsidentin Zürich) ZZZ  [link]
  • Joachim Schoss (Präsident MyHandicap) [JS founded MyHandicap as web portal but does not fulfil any above mentioned criteria] ZZZ
  • Yoshiyuki Sankai (Professor) ZZZ [link]
  • David Weir (Parathlet) ZZZ  [link]

Dem CYBATHLON Organisationskomitee steht ein Beirat zur Seite, bestehend aus internationalen Vertretern der Forschung, Medizin, Wirtschaft und Politik:

  • Roland Auberger (Prothesenentwickler) ZZZ  [link]
  • Rüdiger Böhm (Motivationstrainer) ZZZ  [link]
  • Thomas Böni (Orthopädietechniker) ZZZ [TB worked as orthopedic doctor but no own patents or visible investment in above stated criteria] [link] [link]
  • Rainer Burgkart (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • Lukas Christen (Ehemaliger Parathlet und Coach) ZZZ [LC is a leg amputee]
  • Gery Colombo (Geschäftsleiter HOCOMA) ZZZ [GC could be known from Lokomat but no visible prosthetic arm exposure as defined above] [link]
  • Rory Cooper (Professor) ZZZ [RC is a wheelchair user] [link]
  • Armin Curt (Chefarzt Paraplegie) ZZZ [link]
  • Alireza Darvishy (Professor ICT Accessibility) ZZZ [link]
  • Nicolas Gerig (Forscher Robotik) ZZZ [link]
  • Moritz Grosse-Wentrup (Professor) ZZ[link]
  • Michael Harr (Geschäftsleiter) ZZZ
  • Ken Hunt (Professor) ZZZ [link]
  • Masahiko Inami (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • Fabian Just (Forscher Robotik) ZZZ  [link]
  • Hanni Kloimstein (Bereichsleiterin Sport & Entwicklung) ZZZ  [link]
  • Peter Kyberd (Professor) ZZZ [PK seems to be involved in a lot of research but there are no actual criteria he really fulfills] [link]
  • Christian Lohr (Nationalrat und Mitglied der Kommission für Soziale Sicherheit und Gesundheit) ZZZ [CL is disabled with limb differences but no visibile involvement with the listed criteria]
  • Patrick Mayer (Unternehmer und Innovator) ZZZ
  • Brian McGowan (Gleichstellungsbeauftragter) ZZZ
  • José Millán (Professor) ZZZ [JM is a researcher with an apparent interest in prosthetic arm technology, but no criteria fulfilled, see above] [link]
  • Gernot Müller-Putz (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • Shuro Nakajima (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • Peter Neuhaus (Forscher) ZZZ  [link]
  • Domen/Vesna Novak (Professor) ZZZ [also no relevant research or developments] [link]
  • Alex Oberholzer (Filmkritiker) ZZZ [AO is a disabled film critic but no visible fulfillment of any criteria as stated above]
  • Claudio Perret (Leiter Sportmedizin) ZZZ
  • Mark Pollock (Abenteurer & Netzwerker) ZZZ
  • Abassia Rahmani (Paralympics-Teilnehmerin) ZZZ [AR is a leg amputee]
  • Raffaele Ranzani (Forscher Robotik) ZZZ  [link]
  • Georg Rauter (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • Markus Riesch (Projektleiter Accessibility) ZZZ
  • Thomas Schauer (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • Kai Schmidt (Forscher Robotik) ZZZ  [link]
  • Diana Sigrist-Nix (Leiterin Therapiemanagement und Rehabilitation) ZZZ
  • Karin Suter-Erath (Paralympics-Teilnehmerin) ZZZ [KSE is a wheelchair user]
  • Kyoko Suzuki (Deputy Head S&T Office Japan) ZZZ
  • Simon Voit (Prothesenexperte und Parathlet) ZZZ [SV is a leg amputee]
  • Conor Walsh (Professor) ZZZ  [link]
  • Christian Wenger (Rechtsanwalt) ZZZ
  • Dominik Wyser (Forscher Robotik) ZZZ  [link]

Competence partners [link]:

  • Barrier-Free at ETH [link] – accessibility project of the ETH – ZZZ 
  • BiRoMed Lab [link] – research focus of the BIROMED-Lab is minimal invasive semi-autonomous robotic surgery for laser ablation of bone – ZZZ 
  • Zukunft Inklusion [link] – Aktionstage Behindertenrechte / political/legal social support activities ZZZ 
  • Movement Biomechanics Lab [link] – the Laboratory for Movement Biomechanics focuses on the study of kinematics and kinetics in healthy, reconstructed and replaced joints – ZZZ 
  • MOBSYA [link] – Thymio is an open-source educational robot designed by researchers from the EPFL, in collaboration with ECAL, and produced by Mobsya, a nonprofit association whose mission is to offer comprehensive, engaging STEAM journeys to learners of all age – ZZZ 
  • Neural Control of Movement [link] – the Neural Control of Movement Lab investigates how the human brain controls behaviour and flexibly adapts to internal and environmental demands – ZZZ
  • Center for Project-based Learning [link] – the center focuses its research on energy efficiency for embedded systems and smart sensors over a very wide range of applications – ZZZ
  • Plusport [link] – a sports association: PluSport, Behindertensport Schweiz, Chriesbaum­­strasse 6, 8604 Volketswil –
  • ReLab [link] –  our goal is to promote sensorimotor recovery following neurological injury and to develop assistive technologies to compensate for remaining deficits – ZZZ
  • Rehabilitation Engineering Science [link] – our mission is to promote the establishment of a holistic rehabilitation approach to better meet the needs of people with physical disabilities by facilitating research and transfer, fostering an interdisciplinary network, and raising awareness along the continuum-of-care – ZZZ
  • Sensory-Motor-Systems Lab [link] – the research of the Sensory-Motor Systems Lab focuses on the study of human sensory-motor control, the design of novel mechatronic machines, and the investigation and optimisation of human-machine interaction – ZZZ
  • Swiss Nex [link]. Swissnex is the Swiss global network connecting Switzerland and the world in education, research and innovation. Our mission is to support the outreach and active engagement of our partners in the international exchange of knowledge, ideas and talents – ZZZ

Cybathlon 2024 Commentators [link]:

  • Heads of Disciplines, Event Commentators and Experts from ETH Zürich and the University of Basel. If you have been following CYBATHLON, you will already know these outstanding experts:
  • Adrian Esser – SMS Lab: Upper extremity biomechanics and assistive robotic devices [linkZZZ
  • Chiara Basla – SMS Lab: Wearable exosuits [linkZZZ
  • Michael Sommerhalder – BIROMED-Lab: Surgical robots for laser ablation [linkZZZ
  • Camille Pescatore – Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory: Neurorehabilitation post-stroke using optical neuroimaging.
  • Laura Mayrhuber – Rehabilitation Engineering Laboratory: Sensor-based assessment for stroke survivors.
    Felix Erb – BIROMED-Lab: Robotic measurement of spinal stiffness.
  • Giulia Amos – Laboratory of Biosensors and Bioelectronics: Neuroscience and intelligent systems.
  • Ingrid Odermatt – Neural Control of Movement Lab: Brain-computer interface and motor control.
  • Yong Kuk Kim – Laboratory for Movement Biomechanics: Portable health monitoring systems.
  • Sara Padilla Neira – SMS Lab: Sleep apnea therapy via unobtrusive sensors.

If any of the listed authors has a relevant publication or relevant own development, a real work user and customer oriented prototype that is on a good way, a patent or two along these lines, maybe an industrial collaboration to develop heavy duty body powered prosthetic arm technology, to show how s/he actively contributed to real body-powered arm development, such as building things that are/were then actually sold, we can change this assessment of course – just send me a mail. But just as Cybathlon plays with “criteria” they see “fit”? I can do that too – only: mine are a lot better. If at this stage you forgot what this was about, read the title of the blog again.

With that, the lineup of people and partner organisations – for the suggested task to actually improve the understanding of prosthetic arm function, to actually suggest or carry out improvememts, or to even bring together “the right people” for any research, development or commercial part build from view of a real work delivering user such as me – appears to be ill fashioned. Don’t get be wrong here: I’m not at all saying they did something wrong. They surely must be charming people, too. That is just not how engineering for a particular purpose works. Just from the lineup of this who is who, the Cybathlon Prosthetic Arm race seems not to be at all a rehabilitation focused concept, but, marketing in a pure form, a type of marketing that exploits rather than supports arm amputees in real life [link].

All I’m saying is I see no reason to believe their claims with regard to prosthetic arms. I think they’re novices with regard to real work-related real body-powered arm issues.

The whole Cybathlon Prosthetic Arm aim thus is junk, as far as I see it, and may be abandoned without further notice, if one is to not succumb to the Sunk Cost Fallacy [link].

[1] P. Kyberd, Making hands: a history of prosthetic arms, Academic Press, 2021.
[Bibtex]
@book{kyberd2021making,
  title={Making hands: a history of prosthetic arms},
  author={Kyberd, Peter},
  year={2021},
  publisher={Academic Press}
}
[2] L. J. Resnik, M. Borgia, E. L. Graczyk, J. Barth, and P. Ni, “Prosthesis usability experience is associated with extent of upper limb prosthesis adoption: A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis,” PloS One, vol. 19, iss. 6, p. e0299155, 2024.
[Bibtex]
@article{resnik2024prosthesis,
  title={Prosthesis usability experience is associated with extent of upper limb prosthesis adoption: A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis},
  author={Resnik, Linda J and Borgia, Matthew and Graczyk, Emily L and Barth, Jessica and Ni, Pengsheng},
  journal={PloS One},
  volume={19},
  number={6},
  pages={e0299155},
  year={2024},
  publisher={Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA}
}
[3] T. A. Kuiken, G. A. Dumanian, R. D. Lipschutz, L. A. Miller, and K. Stubblefield, “The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International, vol. 28, iss. 3, pp. 245-253, 2004.
[Bibtex]
@article{kuiken2004use,
  title={The use of targeted muscle reinnervation for improved myoelectric prosthesis control in a bilateral shoulder disarticulation amputee},
  author={Kuiken, Todd A and Dumanian, Gregory Ara and Lipschutz, Robert D and Miller, Laura A and Stubblefield, KA},
  journal={Prosthetics and Orthotics International},
  volume={28},
  number={3},
  pages={245--253},
  year={2004},
  publisher={Taylor \& Francis}
}
[4] T. A. Kuiken, A. S. E. Feuser, and A. K. Barlow, Targeted muscle reinnervation: a neural interface for artificial limbs, Taylor & Francis, 2013.
[Bibtex]
@book{kuiken2013targeted,
  title={Targeted muscle reinnervation: a neural interface for artificial limbs},
  author={Kuiken, Todd A and Feuser, Aimee E Schultz and Barlow, Ann K},
  year={2013},
  publisher={Taylor \& Francis}
}
[5] A. Hussaini, P. Kyberd, and others, “Refined clothespin relocation test and assessment of motion,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International, 2016.
[Bibtex]
@article{hussaini2016refined,
  title={Refined clothespin relocation test and assessment of motion},
  author={Hussaini, Ali and Kyberd, Peter and others},
  journal={Prosthetics and Orthotics International},
  year={2016},
  publisher={Sage}
}
[6] P. Kyberd, A. Hussaini, and G. Maillet, “Characterisation of the Clothespin Relocation Test as a functional assessment tool,” Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering, vol. 5, p. 2055668317750810, 2018.
[Bibtex]
@article{kyberd2018characterisation,
  title={Characterisation of the Clothespin Relocation Test as a functional assessment tool},
  author={Kyberd, Peter and Hussaini, Ali and Maillet, Ghislain},
  journal={Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering},
  volume={5},
  pages={2055668317750810},
  year={2018},
  publisher={SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England}
}
[7] M. Hichert, A. N. Vardy, and D. Plettenburg, “Fatigue-free operation of most body-powered prostheses not feasible for majority of users with trans-radial deficiency,” Prosthetics and orthotics international, vol. 42, iss. 1, pp. 84-92, 2018.
[Bibtex]
@article{hichert2018fatigue,
  title={Fatigue-free operation of most body-powered prostheses not feasible for majority of users with trans-radial deficiency},
  author={Hichert, Mona and Vardy, Alistair N and Plettenburg, Dick},
  journal={Prosthetics and orthotics international},
  volume={42},
  number={1},
  pages={84--92},
  year={2018},
  publisher={SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England}
}
[8] W. Schweitzer, M. J. Thali, and D. Egger, “Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment,” Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, vol. 15, iss. 1, p. 1, 2018.
[Bibtex]
@article{schweitzer2018casestudyprostheticarm,
  title={Case-study of a user-driven prosthetic arm design: bionic hand versus customized body-powered technology in a highly demanding work environment},
  author={Schweitzer, Wolf and Thali, Michael J and Egger, David},
  journal={Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation},
  volume={15},
  number={1},
  pages={1},
  year={2018},
  publisher={BioMed Central}
}

Footnotes

  1. Yep. we can return his cultural favor without problem. Why don’t you drop me a note if you want me to spell his name wrongly as well.
  2. Todd Kuiken et al. (2004): “A clothes pin test was developed that required use of the terminal device, elbow and wrist rotator unit. In this test the patient picked up clothes pins off of a horizontal bar. rotated the pins and placed them on a higher vertical bar. The goal was to see how long it took the subject to move three clothes pins” [3] and Kuiken et al. (2014) “The Clothespin Relocation Test was adapted from the Roylan Graded Pinch Exerciser (Kuiken et al. 2004). Individuals were timed while moving three clothespins from a horizontal bar, rotating them, and placing them on a vertical bar. This task was chosen because it requires control of all three available degrees of freedom of the prosthesis, including wrist rotation” [4]
  3. To quantify trunk motions, motion capture sessions were performed using an 8 camera Vicon M-Cam system. These however may not be exactly user friendly but a bit of a hassle to run; see for example https://www.vicon.com/support/faqs/my-cameras-are-not-connecting-into-my-vicon-software-now-what/:  “My cameras are not connecting into my Vicon software, now what? There are a couple reasons as to why cameras will not connect into the software. Below are some items to look at if you are encountering troubles. 1. Is the hardware on and connected to the computer? Make sure the Vicon connectivity device (i.e. POE+, Giganet or Ultranet) is connected to a configured network port. If you have not set up a network port please refer to the FAQ: How do I set up my network card? 2. Is the system in Live Mode? Please go over to the Systems Tab and make sure you are Live. This can be verified at the top of the 3D Perspective; it will either say “Live” or the name of the currently opened trial. 3. Is the Vicon Software being allowed through the Windows Firewall. To check – please see the following FAQ: I just installed the latest version of software but the cameras no longer connect when I run it. What can I do? 4. Do you have Anti-Virus installed? If so, is the active scanning on the Anti-Virus software turned off? The active scanning will disrupt communication between the computer and the cameras. If the cameras are still not connecting into the software please contact support”.
  4. [link]: Terry Dyke — I like to write. I also hate it. What I really like is ideas, seeing them come alive in a story. The best stories are about who we are and what we are, whatever the particular “we” might be. In that light, journalists, historians, authors, scientists, philosophers, shamans are all storytellers. I’m interested in what they have to say, and reflecting what I hear onto the page. The stories I’m most interested in are about history, culture, politics, urbanism, technology, energy, philosophy, language, myth, and communication. I have no special skill in any of these areas, except maybe thinking about them. Creative types are often told to “think outside the box.” I like to think about the box. Personally, I’m an old hippie happily married and retired from a twenty-year stint as a public servant at the City of Austin. Our department had a hand in the development of Austin’s piece of the Information Superhighway, helping regular people make the transition to digital life. Before that, I worked as a media and computer consultant, along with writing a monthly column in TV Technology magazine; before that, a VP and producer at a cable TV network; before that, computer programmer; before that, health care worker doing alternative service to get the government off my case for the five years I spent underground as a draft resister. Before that, I played in rock and roll bands. Now I’m living in France. It’s great. Beauty, history, food, and people who trust each other. I feel like I’m supposed to be here. Kurt Vonnegut once said that after living sixty years or so, “life as a shapely story has ended and all that remains to be experienced is epilogue.” In truth, I can’t decide if I’m having an unusually good epilogue or starting a sequel.

Cite this article:
Wolf Schweitzer: swisswuff.ch - Peter Kyberd and the Cybathlon Advisory Board [commentary]; published 13/02/2024, 21:04; URL: https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13047.

BibTeX 1: @MISC{schweitzer_wolf_1738961555, author = {Wolf Schweitzer}, title = {{swisswuff.ch - Peter Kyberd and the Cybathlon Advisory Board [commentary]}}, month = {February}, year = {2024}, url = {https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13047}

BibTeX 2: @MISC{schweitzer_wolf_1738961555, author = {Wolf Schweitzer}, title = {{Peter Kyberd and the Cybathlon Advisory Board [commentary]}}, howpublished = {Technical Below Elbow Amputee Issues}, month = {February}, year = {2024}, url = {https://www.swisswuff.ch/tech/?p=13047} }