Chapter 1
The Early History
Contents
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The Beginnings of Myoelectric Control
1.3 National Beginnings of Myoelectric Prosth etics .
1.3.1 The United Kingdom
1.3.2 The USSR . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
1.3.3 The United States
1.3.4 Austria
1.3.5 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.6 Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
1.3.7 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.8 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.9 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Collaborati on in Myoel ectr ic Controls Research .
1.5 Developments in Myoelectric Control . . . . . ..
1.5.1 The United Kingdom
1.5.2 The United States
1.5.3 Yugoslavia . .. . . . . . .. • . . . . . . . .
1.5.4 Canada . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5.5 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6 Discussion
References . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
A. Muzumdar (ed.), Powered Upper Limb Prostheses
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004
of Myoelectric Control
of Prosthetic Li mbs
(1945-1970)
L.McLean· R. N. Scott
Summary
1 This chapter traces the development of myoelectric
2 control of prosthetic arms from its conception in
3 post-war Germany thro ugh its popu lar acclaim in
3
"bionic arms" toward its acceptance asa routine and
3
4 valid option for many arm amputees. Separate and
4 apparent ly unrelated conceptions of myoelectric
5 control in Germany,the United Kingdom , the USSR,
5 the USAand Canadaare followed with particular at-
5
tention to the gradual achievement of collaborative
5
6 ties research and the even slower development of
6 commercial products for clinical application. The im -
7 pact of wars, epidemics and world political climate
7 upon this activity is noted. The chapter is written
7
10
from the perspective of one of the authors (RNSI,
10 who directed a program of myoelectric controls re-
11 search at the Institute of Biomedical Engineering at
12 the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB,
13 Canada through this period and is based on a care-
ful review of the extensive collection of relevant lit-
erature held at the Institute,much of which is unpub-
lished or has had only a very restricted circulation .
1.1 Introduction
The concept of a myoelectric prosthesis is simple.
The electrical activity naturally generated by con-
tracting muscle in a residual limb is amplified, pro-
cessed and used to control the flow of electricity from
a battery to a motor, which operates an artificial limb.
However the design of a clinically useful myoelec-
tric prosthesis is extremely difficult. The prosthesis
must be comfortable, must work reliably and must
have a natural appearance both at rest and during
functional activities. In addition, as noted by Weiner
 Chapter 1
[69], the prosthesis ideally should replace not only
mechanical function but also cutaneous and kinaes-
thetic sensation. The challenge of achieving a com-
fortable fitting becomes greater as the weight of the
prosthesis increases; thus minimizing weight be-
comes an important design objective. Toachieve clin-
ical acceptance, ease of fitting, adjustment and train-
ing are essential. The challenge of achieving a natural
(anthropomorphic) appearance creates size con-
straints. A natural appearance during function, what
Tucker called "dynamic cosmesis", is equally impor-
tant [58] and contributes to the complexity of design
both in terms of segmental trajectories and in terms
of mechanical noise. Versatility, typically achieved
through modular design, is important if the needs of
a variety of individuals are to be met.
It is these aspects of myoelectric prosthesis design
which have challenged designers since myoelectric
control was conceived and it is the failure to meet
these design criteria which continues to challenge us-
ers, clinicians, engineers and researchers alike. Final-
ly,despite all of the above design constraints, the cost
of the device should be controlled. Like most techno-
logical products, mass production of myoelectric
prostheses would contribute to affordability. Howev-
er, the market is both small in numbers and complex
in its diversity and research and development costs
are high, leaving little scope for cost reduction
As with many medical technologies, developments
in myoelectric prosthetics have tended to follow ma-
jor political, economic or epidemiological world
events. After a war, the demand for technological de-
velopment is enhanced by the presence of victims of
the war. Funding tends to increase due to a feeling of
accountability by governments. Sometimes techno-
logical developments driven by military require-
ments can be applied to prosthetics. Of all victims,
however, the "Thalidomide Children" - children born
to mothers who had taken the drug Thalidomide dur-
ing pregnancy - provided the most touching appeal
as single and multiple limb amelia or phocomelia
were common, leaving clinicians and researchers
desperate for improved limb prostheses. The political
response was to provide public funds for research
and development into improved prostheses for these
children.
The Early History of Myoelectric Control
1.2 The Beginnings of Myoelectric Control
Myoelectric control was first implemented by Rein-
hold Reiter, a physics student at Munich University.
The first written evidence of Reiter's research was a
May 1945patent application [51].
The only published report of Reiter's work, in a
German medical newspaper, [53], described a myo-
electric prosthetic arm designed for the amputee fac-
tory worker. A prototype was demonstrated at the
Hannover Export Fair in that year. The research lead-
ing to this device was supported by the Bavarian Red
Cross and private sources [53]. Pudlusky, who was
Reiter's business manager for the project, noted that
development of the system was terminated due to the
lack of funds after the German currency reform in
1948 [51].
The prototype prosthesis, intended for concept
testing, was not portable: its control system employed
vacuum tubes which required considerable power"
and the electric hand was quite inefficient, so the
prosthesis was dependent on energy from the build-
ing wiring. It could be used at a factory work station,
where the amputee would don the limb once seated,
use it for gross motor tasks as required and remove it
at the end of his shift. But in this form the prosthesis
would be of little use in general activities of daily liv-
ing.
The idea behind the control system was to amplify
the myoelectric signal from a contracting muscle in
order to control a wooden hand, which was modified
to be actuated by an electric solenoid. Reiter used a
single muscle site in the residual limb. Control of
opening and closing motions was derived from using
"two different rhythms of contraction". This scheme
of using the signal from a single muscle to control
two motions (plus an "off" state) was later to be
known as "three state control" [15]. Reiter's version of
this control was a rate-controlled system, in which a
short duration, large burst of signal (identified by its
rapid rate of rise) would send power to the solenoid,
opening the prosthetic hand. In the absence of any
.. The transistor was not invented until 1948 [2)