The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise?

Table 3 Test statistics of the repeated measures ANOVA for the RoM, KV, and KR

Interaction effect	Test statistic (F)	df numerator	df denominator	p-value	Effect size (Generalized η²)
Prosthetic hand^a * Joint angle^b RoM
RCRT up RCRT down Tray-test	0.2 1.9 0.8	1.3 1.6 2.6	11.6 14.2 23.6	0.75 0.20 0.52	0.01 0.03 0.01
Prosthetic hand^a * Joint angle^b KV
RCRT up RCRT down Tray-test	0.9 4.0 1.0	1.5 1.7 2.7	13.2 15.3 24.0	0.39 0.05 0.40	0.03 0.09 0.01
Prosthetic hand^a * Joint angle^b KR
RCRT up RCRT down Tray-test	1.8 2.0 1.0	3.1 1.9 2.7	28.2 17.4 24.0	0.17 0.16 0.40	0.01 0.01 0.01

The ANOVA was performed separately for each task for the JC-sim group
No statistical differences of the RoM, KV, and KR were found between participants who used the Bebionic and i-limb
^aLevels: MHP and SHP
^bLevels: trunk flexion/extension, trunk axial bending, trunk lateral bending, shoulder flexion/extension, shoulder internal/external rotation, shoulder abduction/adduction and elbow flexion/extension
RoM range of motion, KV kinematic variability, KR kinematic repeatability, RCRT refined clothespin relocation test, JC-sim joint coordination similar, MHP multi-grip myoelectric hand prosthesis, SHP standard myoelectric hand prosthesis

ISSN: 1743-0003