Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Specifics from participants of Cybathlon 2016 and 2020.

(A) refer to active and (P) to passive joints. Note that (RW) rotational wrist, (EW) extension wrist, (F-EW) flexion-extension wrist and (E) elbow. For control modalities, (BP) refers to Body-powered with (NC) normally closed and (NO) normally opened; (EMG) refers to electromyography sensors, and (FMG) to force myography sensors and (imp. EMG) to implanted EMG sensors.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Overview of the participation between Cybathlon 2016 and 2020.

The plots provide indications regarding hand type, wrist use and control techniques adopted in both editions.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Evaluation of the ACMC for the race of Cybathlon 2016.

In the central area, the matrix of the number of tasks per ACMC item is presented. There, red means that no scoring is possible (=0), while green proves its possible observation (=1). In the upper part, the number of tasks in which an item can be observed, and thus scored, is present. In the right side, the number of items that may be observed per task. The largest, the more complete is a defined task, and closer to real at-home conditions.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Evaluation of the ACMC for the race of Cybathlon 2020.

In the central area, the matrix of the number of tasks per ACMC item is presented. There, red means that no scoring is possible (=0), while green proves its possible observation (=1). In the upper part, the number of tasks in which an item can be observed, and thus scored, is present. In the right side, the number of items that may be observed per task. The largest, the more complete is a defined task, and closer to real at-home conditions.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

ACMC scoring for Cybathlon 2016 and 2020.

The order of the proposed technology by teams is the result in each race, from right to left. The ACMC score goes from 0 to 100 points. The highest score, the more capable is considered the subject or technology under evaluation of its use at-home conditions. On the right side, the clinical condition defined by the assessment is reported.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

ACMC average item score (± SD) for Cybathlon 2016 and 2020 participants.

The ACMC item score goes from 0 to 3. The highest score, the more capable is considered the subject or technology under evaluation of its use at-home. The items are grouped in 4 different manipulation actions of interest: grasping, re-adjusting, holding and releasing, separated by vertical dashed lines.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

ACMC items score for Cybathlon 2016 participants.

Each ACMC item (x axis) receives a score that goes from 0 to 3 (y axis). Subjects or technologies that obtain higher scores should present more proficient at-home use. The items are grouped in 4 different manipulation actions of interest: grasping, re-adjusting, holding and releasing, separated by vertical dashed lines. Participants are presented vertically in the classification order.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

ACMC items score for Cybathlon 2020 participants.

Each ACMC item (x axis) receives a score goes from 0 to 3 (y axis). Subjects or technologies that obtain higher scores should present more proficient at-home use. The items are grouped in 4 different manipulation actions of interest: grasping, re-adjusting, holding and releasing, separated by vertical dashed lines. Participants are presented vertically in the classification order.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Detailed results from participants at each task during Cyabthlon 2016.

Note that the colored lines for each team helps the visualization of the marker of each team corresponding to the performance of each task, and do not represent a tendency among tasks.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Histograms of the time executed per task among participants.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Pilot performance.

(a) reports the team name, (b) shows the Cybathlon time and the average time (n = 3 races) per pilot and (c) presents results from a hypothetical race per pilot (using their best time per task among repetitions).

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

Detailed results from participants at each task during Cybathlon 2020.

Note that the colored lines for each team helps the visualization of the marker of each team corresponding to the performance of each task, and do not represent a tendency among tasks.

More »

Fig 12 Expand