Intermanual Transfer Effects in Below-Elbow Myoelectric Prosthesis Users



      To determine intermanual transfer effects in patients with a below-elbow amputation using a myoelectric prosthesis and to establish whether laterality affects these effects.




      A standardized setting in a rehabilitation clinic.


      A convenience sample (N=44) of experienced myoelectric prosthesis users (n=22) and matched controls (n=22). Controls were matched on sex, age (±5y), and hand dominance.


      Both the experienced group and the control group performed several tasks using a prosthesis simulator attached to their nonaffected arm.

      Main Outcome Measures

      Movement time, force control, Box and Block test (BBT) scores, and duration of hand opening.


      Movement times of myoelectric prosthesis users were shorter, and these users had significantly higher BBT scores and shorter hand opening durations than those of controls. No intermanual transfer effects on force control and no laterality effects were found.


      Intermanual transfer effects were present in experienced myoelectric prosthesis users with a below-elbow amputation, independent of laterality. These findings support the clinical relevance of intermanual transfer training, which may facilitate persons with an upper limb amputation to start training directly after the amputation.


      List of abbreviations:

      ANOVA (analysis of variance), BBT (Box and Block test), CI (confidence interval)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Biddiss E.A.
        • Chau T.T.
        Upper limb prosthesis use and abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2007; 31: 236-257
        • Dudkiewicz I.
        • Gabrielov R.
        • Seiv-Ner I.
        • Zelig G.
        • Heim M.
        Evaluation of prosthetic usage in upper limb amputees.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2004; 26: 60-63
        • Carter I.
        • Torrance W.N.
        • Merry P.H.
        Functional results following amputation of the upper limb.
        Ann Phys Med. 1969; 10: 137-141
        • Weeks D.L.
        • Wallace S.A.
        • Anderson D.I.
        Training with an upper-limb prosthetic simulator to enhance transfer of skill across limbs.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 84: 437-443
        • Dromerick A.W.
        • Schabowsky C.N.
        • Holley R.J.
        • Monroe B.
        • Markotic A.
        • Lum P.S.
        Effect of training on upper-extremity prosthetic performance and motor learning: a single-case study.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 89: 1199-1204
        • Bowker J.H.
        The art of prosthesis prescription.
        in: Smith D.G. Michael J.W. Bowker J.H. Atlas of amputations and limb deficiencies. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont2004: 742
        • Malone J.M.
        • Fleming L.L.
        • Roberson J.
        • et al.
        Immediate, early, and late postsurgical management of upper-limb amputation.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 1984; 21: 33-41
        • Gaine W.J.
        • Smart C.
        • Bransby-Zachary M.
        Upper limb traumatic amputees: review of prosthetic use.
        J Hand Surg Br. 1997; 22: 73-76
        • Atkins D.
        Adult upper limb prosthetic training.
        in: Bowker H.K. Michael J.W. Atlas of limb prosthetics: surgical, prosthetic, and rehabilitation principles. 2nd ed. Mosby-Year Book, Rosemont1992: 277-292
        • Romkema S.
        • Bongers R.M.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        Intermanual transfer in training with an upper-limb myoelectric prosthesis simulator: a mechanistic, randomized, pretest-posttest study.
        Phys Ther. 2013; 93: 22-31
        • Romkema S.
        • Bongers R.M.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        Intermanual transfer effect in young children after training in a complex skill: mechanistic, pseudorandomized, pretest-posttest study.
        Phys Ther. 2015; 95: 730-739
        • Romkema S.
        • Bongers R.M.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        Influence of inter-training intervals on intermanual transfer effects in upper-limb prosthesis training: a randomized pre-posttest study.
        PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0128747
        • Hicks R.E.
        • Gualtieri C.T.
        • Schroeder S.R.
        Cognitive and motor components of bilateral transfer.
        Am J Psychol. 1983; 96: 223-228
        • Karni A.
        • Meyer G.
        • Rey-Hipolito C.
        • et al.
        The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998; 95: 861-868
        • Kumar B.S.G.
        • D'souza S.A.
        The effect of intermanual transfer of an occupationally embedded task on skill generalization.
        Ind J Occup Ther. 2006; 38: 3-8
        • Lee M.
        • Hinder M.R.
        • Gandevia S.C.
        • Carroll T.J.
        The ipsilateral motor cortex contributes to cross-limb transfer of performance gains after ballistic motor practice.
        J Physiol. 2010; 588: 201-212
        • Byrd R.
        • Gibson M.
        • Gleason M.H.
        Bilateral transfer across ages 7 to 17 years.
        Percept Mot Skills. 1986; 62: 87-90
        • Parker-Taillon D.
        • Kerr R.
        Manual asymmetries within the performance of a complex motor task.
        Hum Mov Sci. 1989; 8: 33-44
        • Parlow S.E.
        • Kinsbourne M.
        Asymmetrical transfer of training between hands: implications for interhemispheric communication in normal brain.
        Brain Cogn. 1989; 11: 98-113
        • Pan Z.
        • van Gemmert A.W.
        The direction of bilateral transfer depends on the performance parameter.
        Hum Mov Sci. 2013; 32: 1070-1081
        • Taylor H.G.
        • Heilman K.M.
        Left-hemisphere motor dominance in righthanders.
        Cortex. 1980; 16: 587-603
        • Criscimagna-Hemminger S.E.
        • Donchin O.
        • Gazzaniga M.S.
        • Shadmehr R.
        Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to nondominant arm.
        J Neurophysiol. 2003; 89: 168-176
        • Wang J.
        • Sainburg R.L.
        Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical.
        J Neurophysiol. 2004; 92: 349-360
        • Parlow S.E.
        • Kinsbourne M.
        Asymmetrical transfer of braille acquisition between hands.
        Brain Lang. 1990; 39: 319-330
        • Teixeira L.A.
        Timing and force components in bilateral transfer of learning.
        Brain Cogn. 2000; 44: 455-469
        • Hill W.
        • Kyberd P.
        • Hermansson L.N.
        • et al.
        Upper Limb prosthetic Outcome Measures (UPLOM): a working group and their findings.
        J Prosthet Orthot. 2009; 21: 69-82
        • Bouwsema H.
        • Kyberd P.J.
        • Hill W.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        • Bongers R.M.
        Determining skill level in myoelectric prosthesis use with multiple outcome measures.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49: 1331-1348
        • Bouwsema H.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        • Bongers R.M.
        Changes in performance over time while learning to use a myoelectric prosthesis.
        J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014; 11: 16
        • Oldfield R.C.
        The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory.
        Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9: 97-113
        • Lum P.S.
        • Black I.
        • Holley R.J.
        • Barth J.
        • Dromerick A.W.
        Internal models of upper limb prosthesis users when grasping and lifting a fragile object with their prosthetic limb.
        Exp Brain Res. 2014; 232: 3785-3795
        • Haverkate L.
        • Smit G.
        • Plettenburg D.H.
        Assessment of body-powered upper limb prostheses by able-bodied subjects, using the Box and Blocks Test and The Nine-Hole Peg Test.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2016; 40: 109-116
        • Desrosiers J.
        • Bravo G.
        • Hebert R.
        • Dutil E.
        • Mercier L.
        Validation of the Box and Block Test as a measure of dexterity of elderly people: reliability, validity, and norms studies.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994; 75: 751-755
        • Bouwsema H.
        • van der Sluis C.K.
        • Bongers R.M.
        Effect of feedback during virtual training of grip force control with a myoelectric prosthesis.
        PLoS One. 2014; 9: e98301
        • Van Lunteren A.
        • Van Lunteren-Gerritsen G.H.
        • Stassen H.G.
        • Zuithoff M.J.
        A field evaluation of arm prostheses for unilateral amputees.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 1983; 7: 141-151