TOUCH / PROSTHETICS & SENSORY FEEDBACK

Action, with useful feedback.

Touch explores how prosthetic control, contact feedback and individual fitting could work together to support upper-limb tasks.

Research & architecture

Intended users: Upper-limb prosthesis users, prosthetists and rehabilitation teams.
Initial setting: A defined fitting and rehabilitation task, before broader everyday use.
Next question to test: Choose one task with users and a prosthetist partner, then test control, comfort and feedback.

Touch is in development at the research and architecture stage. The proposed functions are not a validated prosthesis or rehabilitation service.

The question we are addressing

How can a prosthesis help its user act on an intention, understand contact with an object and practise meaningful tasks? Touch brings these questions into one research programme, drawing on the earlier ATLAS prosthetics work.

The proposed design connects the interface with the wearer to the interaction with the object. Control, comfort and feedback would be evaluated together, with the user able to modify or override assistance.

What we are exploring

Fit and control

Assess contact, comfort and available control inputs. Early adjustment functions would remain under user or professional control.

Contact and sensation

Investigate which information about grip, contact and slip is useful to the wearer, and how to present it without excessive effort or distraction.

Practice and follow-up

Connect agreed tasks with reports of discomfort and functional assessments, so a rehabilitation team can review progress and fitting needs.

An example future workflow

Illustrative research scenario: a cup-transfer task agreed by a prosthesis user and their rehabilitation team.

Fit and calibrate. The prosthetist checks fit, skin condition, control inputs and the proposed feedback interface.
Agree the task. The user and therapist choose the exercise and the assistance permitted.
Act and receive feedback. The user initiates movement; any validated assistance stays within agreed limits and remains overridable.
Review the experience. Record task performance, comfort and the help required. Fitting concerns return to the prosthetist.

This describes an intended workflow, not a currently delivered service.

What needs to be demonstrated

Begin with one defined task and compare with an appropriate existing control method. Evaluate task success, object drops, completion time, comfort, cognitive burden, effective override and failure behaviour.

Automatic socket adjustment and more autonomous assistance would need separate evidence. Implanted feedback interfaces are a distinct research question; Touch does not currently establish restored natural sensation.

Its place in Phanes

Touch owns the questions around prosthetic interaction and local control. Daughter could support fitting records, practice and professional follow-up. That software connection is proposed; it does not establish a working integration.

See all Phanes programmes

Shape the first task with us

We welcome input from upper-limb prosthesis users, prosthetists, occupational therapists, rehabilitation researchers and control engineers. The first step is to identify a specific task where better feedback or fitting would matter.

Discuss Touch