







































All articles are permanently available online to the public without restrictions or subscription 

fees. All articles are free to be used, cited, and distributed, on condition that appropriate 

acknowledgment is included. Authors are the copyright holders of their original 

contributions and grant the Canadian Online Publication Group (COPG) a license to 

publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. CPOJ articles are licensed 

under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.   

 

CPOJ Website: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index 

Editorial Office: cpoj@online-publication.com    

ISSN: 2561-987X 

CPOJ is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, the Committee on Publication 

Ethics (COPE).   

 

 

VOLUME 5, ISSUE 2 

 2022 

 

RESEARCH ARTICLE 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 

Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

https://online-publication.com/wp/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index
mailto:cpoj@online-publication.com
https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation
https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation
https://publicationethics.org/members/canadian-prosthetics-orthotics-journal
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

1 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

 

 

 
RESEARCH ARTICLE 

 

DOES TRANS-RADIAL LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION INFLUENCE MYOELECTRIC CONTROL? 

Olsen J1*, Day S2, Dupan S3, Nazarpour K3, Dyson M1  
 
1 Intelligent Sensing Laboratory, School of Engineering, Newcastle University, UK. 
2 National Centre for Prosthetics and Orthotics, Strathclyde University, UK. 
3 Edinburgh Neuroprosthetics Laboratory, School of Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, UK. 

  
 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

INTRODUCTION   

Modern trans-radial limb prostheses comprise three main 

elements: a state-of-the-art bionic hand,1,2 sensors for 

capturing electromyographic (EMG) signals, and a socket - 

the design of which has not changed significantly in over 60 

years.3-5  

The introduction of the Muenster and Northwestern style 

sockets led to the emergence of self-suspending trans-

radial prostheses as early as 1960s.4,6,7 These designs 

eliminated the need for a suspension harness,7 giving more 

freedom to wearers.8 Around a decade later, EMG-

controlled terminal devices became prevalent. The EMG 

sensors, which are required for control, were retrofitted into 

self-suspending socket designs.3 Since then, there has 

been a vast increase in the complexity of myoelectric 

devices available.9 Despite this, trends indicate that 

abandonment rates have not reduced over time, with 

reports as high as 44% in literature.10 Lack of control, poor 

reliability and discomfort are key causes of abandonment of 

myoelectric prostheses.5,11-16 

Traditional socket designs are not optimised to 

accommodate the weight of additional hardware or to 

prevent loss of contact between the EMG sensors and their 

target muscle groups.3 Restricted space within most 

sockets generally only allows for one or two clinical-

standard electrodes.17 Additionally, some modern terminal 

devices exceed 0.6kg,18 approximately three times the 

 
OPEN  ACCESS Volume 5, Issue 2, Article No.2. 2022 

 

 

Journal Homepage: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index 

 

ABSTRACT 

BACKGROUND: Existing trans-radial prosthetic socket designs are not optimised to facilitate reliable 

myoelectric control. Many socket designs pre-date the introduction of myoelectric devices. However, 

socket designs featuring improved biomechanical stability, notably longitudinal compression sockets, 

have emerged in more recent years. Neither the subsequent effects, if any, of stabilising the limb on 

myoelectric control nor in which arrangement to apply the compression have been reported. 

METHODOLOGY: Twelve able-bodied participants completed two tasks whilst wearing a longitudinal 

compression socket simulator in three different configurations: 1) compressed, where the compression 

strut was placed on top of the muscle of interest, 2) relief, where the compression struts were placed 

either side of the muscle being recorded and 3) uncompressed, with no external compression. The 

tasks were 1) a single-channel myoelectric target tracking exercise, followed by 2), a high-intensity 

grasping task. The wearers’ accuracy during the tracking task, the pressure at opposing sides of the 

simulator during contractions and the rate at which the limb fatigued were observed. 

FINDINGS: No significant difference between the tracking-task accuracy scores or rate of fatigue was 

observed for the different compression configurations. Pressure recordings from the compressed 

configuration showed that pressure was maintained at opposing sides of the simulator during muscle 

contractions. 

CONCLUSION: Longitudinal compression does not inhibit single-channel EMG control, nor improve 

fatigue performance. Longitudinal compression sockets have the potential to improve the reliability of 

multi-channel EMG control due to the maintenance of pressure during muscle contractions.  

 

ARTICLE INFO 

Received: January 14, 2022 

Accepted: June 30, 2022 

Published: July 20, 2022 

CITATION 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, 

Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-

radial longitudinal compression 

influence myoelectric control? 

Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 

Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, 

No.2.https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v

5i2.37963 

KEYWORDS 

Amputation, Prosthetic, Socket, 

Compression, Myoelectric, EMG, 

Control, Fatigue, Compression-

Release, Trans-Radial, Upper-Limb 

 

* CORRESPONDING AUTHOR 

Jennifer Olsen, 
Intelligent Sensing Laboratory, School of Engineering, Newcastle 
University, UK. 

Email: j.olsen@newcastle.ac.uk 

ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9076-3092 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/index
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963
https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9076-3092


 

2 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
weight of a split-hook, a common body-powered 

alternative.19 Adjustable electrode housings have been 

trialled in an attempt to assist myoelectric control with 

existing sockets.15 However, there are no known novel 

socket styles designed specifically to optimise EMG control, 

and research into this topic is scarce.16 In contrast, several 

designs have emerged with the aim of improving 

biomechanical stability, most notably those featuring 

longitudinal compression.7,20-22 It is known that consistent 

contact between the residuum and the electrodes is 

required for reliable myoelectric control,3,16 but to the best 

of our knowledge there is currently no published research 

detailing whether the enhanced tissue stabilisation provided 

by longitudinal compression sockets improves myoelectric 

prosthesis reliability. Out of the available longitudinal 

compression socket designs, the Compression-Release 

Stabilized (CRS) socket is a well-known design for which 

fitting notes are documented.20 

The theory behind longitudinal compression sockets is that 

the compressed areas stabilise the underlying structures 

and reduce lost-motion, the relative motion between a 

socket and residuum during movement, improving 

biomechanical stability.20 Relatively recent designs, such as 

the CRS20 feature both longitudinal compression and cut-

out release regions for the displaced tissue to spill into.20,21 

Earlier iterations of sockets featuring localised compression 

such as the “Trans-radial Anatomically Contoured (TRAC) 

interface”7 and the “Anatomically Contoured and Controlled 

Interface (ACCI)”22 did not feature release areas to allow the 

displaced tissue to move into, and therefore had limited 

success. This paper will therefore reference the CRS design 

to explain the fundamental principles of longitudinal 

compression sockets. Note that throughout the paper we 

have referred to longitudinal compression as a concept, not 

a specific socket design. 

Conventional CRS sockets are fitted using a protected 

procedure which only trained professionals can perform.20 

The process involves bar-shaped depressors indenting the 

residuum during the casting stage to create areas of 

intentional localised compression.20 The location of the bars 

is determined by the professional conducting the CRS cast, 

based on underlying tissue geometry and avoiding major 

blood vessels.20 Currently there is no public guidance or 

published scientific evidence to suggest which sensor 

location in a CRS socket is more beneficial for myoelectric 

control. In the original paper that proposed the CRS 

design,20 the image of the socket are contradictory. The 

image shows the electrodes mounted on compression 

struts, but the text suggests that they could be placed on a 

membrane in the relief area. Anecdotally, it is known that in 

sockets featuring depression bars, such as the CRS, 

electrodes are usually mounted in compressed areas for 

convenience and several images of CRS sockets support 

this.20,23 

Other positive effects that longitudinal compression sockets 

may have on residuum physiology are yet to be reported. 

Compression garments are frequently used therapeutically 

for medical conditions such as oedema and cerebral palsy 

and to improve athletic performance.24-30 As longitudinal 

compression sockets provide regions of both high and low 

pressure, it is assumed their mechanism of action will be 

similar to that of “directional compression” garments, which 

provide targeted areas of varying compression.26 

Directional compression garments have been shown to 

reduce physiological responses which would result in 

muscle fatigue during sport and physical activity,27,28 

however it is not yet known whether longitudinal 

compression sockets provide the same benefit. Additionally, 

high pressure must be applied with caution, as excessive 

localised compression can result in tissue ischemia and skin 

breakdown.29,31 If the pressure restricts blood flow for a 

significant period of time, wounds, injuries and even tissue 

death can occur.20,31,32-34  

Finding an acceptable level of compression and blood 

perfusion is a complex task for prosthetists without 

additional equipment.20 No quantitative method or 

guidelines are available, however postischaemic hyperemia 

(redness after a prosthesis is removed) can be used to 

gauge acceptable compression levels.20 Extrapolating 

existing data for medical devices is also complex as many 

studies reporting safe levels of compression for medical 

devices refer to stockings which provide a different 

mechanism of compression.33 Additionally, the safe range 

for compression garments depend on the location 

compression is being applied to.29,31,32-35 Similarly, studies 

of localised pressure often refer to pressure sores resulting 

from long-term tissue ischaemia in immobile patients.29,35 

This study explored the potential effect of longitudinal 

compression on three fundamental factors central to the use 

of myoelectric prostheses; namely, control, electrode-skin 

contact and muscle fatigue. We hypothesised longitudinal 

compression would provide enhanced myoelectric control 

due to immobilisation of the target muscles. 

METHODOLOGY 

The local ethics committee at the Newcastle University 

approved this study (Ref: #11532/2020 and #20-DYS-050). 

Twelve able-bodied participants between 20-40 years of 

age were recruited (sex: 7 male, 5 female). All participants 

were active individuals who self-identified as right-hand 

dominant. As our participant pool was limited in size, and 

we did not anticipate factors such as mass, height, or grip 

strength to be associated with myoelectric ability; only 

participant gender and age range were recorded.  

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

3 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 

A two-part experiment featuring a custom-made longitudinal 

compression simulator was performed. The first part of the 

experiment assessed the effect of longitudinal compression 

on EMG control using a simple target tracking task. The 

second part assessed the effect of longitudinal compression 

on the rate of forearm fatigue during a short, high intensity 

grasping activity. 

Equipment 

To enable longitudinal, localised forearm compression, a 

custom rig was developed, shown in Figure 1(a). The rig had 

four depressor bars, simulating the struts of a longitudinal 

compression socket. This design was chosen as it is 

reported to be the most stable configuration for a CRS 

socket,20 a common and well documented example of a 

longitudinal compression socket. The bars were evenly 

spaced around the rig. Each bar contained two Ohmite 

FSR07CE Force Sensing Resistors (FSRs) to allow the 

compression applied to be calibrated and monitored. Bars 

could be depressed and released using manually adjustable 

wing-nuts to fit all participants. Each bar was 3D printed in 

two halves featuring recessed areas to house the FSRs and 

depressors to evenly compress the FSRs, as shown in 

Figure 1. The inner-design of the depressor bars allowed 

reliable calibration of the FSRs prior to use due to the rigid 

material and consistent depressor area, as shown in  

Figure 1(b). Each FSR was calibrated between 0-20kPa (≈ 

0-150mmHg) using calibration weights. During both 

calibration and the experiment, pressure data was recorded 

using a Teensy® 4.0 board. The Teensy ran Firmata 

firmware and sampled pressure data at 1000 Hz. EMG 

sensors (DELSYS Mini, DELSYS, USA) were used to 

acquire EMG data at 2000 Hz. The AxoPy experimental 

library was used to synchronize pressure and EMG data, 

and to provide online visualisation.36 Two dynamometers 

(CAMRY, USA) were used during the fatigue experiment. 

    Safety 

Given that there was no documented precedent for the 

appropriate level of compression to apply, it was calculated 

based on the task duration. Chang et. al established a 

parabolic relationship between the length of time that tissue 

is compressed, magnitude of compression, and safety.32 

Assuming no shear forces, the relationship is valid for 

between 2 to 7 hours of compression. The task was 

predicted to take 2 hours approximately, hence the 

maximum safe pressure level was calculated to be 16kPa 

(120mmHg). To ensure safety and make the results more 

applicable to daily wear of a myoelectric prostheses, the 

target range of compression was lowered to 6.7-9.3kPa (50-

70mmHg), which would give an approximate allowable wear 

time of 3.4-4.8 hours, with a tolerance range of 5.3-10.7kPa 

(40-80 mmHg) per bar. It is important to note that although 

no numerical precedent is documented, the CRS socket 

“compress the tissue against the long bone [...] until it no 

longer yields”,37 which is much higher than the levels 

featured in this experiment as even at the upper range of 

10.7kPa, the limb were not completely compressed. During 

calibration a real time display provided a colour coded 

pressure value data from each FSR to the experimental 

operator to facilitate calibration.  

 

Figure 1: (a): The 3D-printed compression rig; (b): A CAD representation of the compression bar showing the inbuilt FSR depressors; (c): The 
top half of a compression bar, showing the FSR sensors inside; (d): The bottom half of a compression bar, showing the FSR depressors.  

a) 

 

 

 

 

c) 

b) 

 

 

 

 

d) 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

4 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 

Experiment  

Three compression-release socket configurations were 

tested. Each condition changed the location of the 

compression bars while an EMG sensor remained fixed in 

an identical location on the extensor muscle group. The 

socket configurations tested are shown in Figure 2 and were 

defined as follows: 

Uncompressed: The EMG sensor was affixed to the skin 

with no external compression. 

Relief: The EMG sensor is located in the relief area, 

equidistant between two compression bars. 

Compressed: The EMG sensor is located underneath a 

compression bar. 

For both the uncompressed and relief configurations, a 

DELSYS adhesive interface (adhesive film) was used to 

affix the EMG sensor to the skin. For the compressed 

configuration this was not required as the compression bar 

held the sensor in place. 

    Control 

Prior to each experiment a calibration process was 

performed wearing the simulator as shown in Figure 3 (a). 

Participants were asked to position their dominant arm at 

their side, with 90-degree elbow flexion and their wrist in a 

neutral position. Participants were shown how to contract 

their wrist extensors using wrist motions and the extensor 

muscle group was manually located by palpating the arm. 

The EMG sensor was placed on the extensor area and the 

quality of the acquired EMG signal was confirmed by visual 

inspection. The location of the electrode was then marked 

using a marker pen. 

An EMG calibration procedure was performed.38 Holding 

the aforementioned neutral position, a mean absolute value 

(MAV) was captured over a 750ms window, representative 

of two states: baseline EMG activity (ymin), and a 

comfortable contraction (ymax). It was explained that 

participants would need to repeat this contraction many 

times throughout the experiment, hence they should not 

contract too much to prevent future discomfort. The MAV of 

the raw EMG data input was denoted as (y). Normalisation 

constants were derived from calibration MAV data, and in 

all consequent conditions EMG was normalised using said 

constants. Normalised muscle activity (ynorm) was calculated 

as: 

ynorm = (y − ymin)/(ymax − ymin)       (1) 

In all experiments ynorm was used for control. Each 

participant was calibrated in the experimental condition they 

performed first. For further details of the calibration 

procedure see the methods described in Dupan et. al.38  

A simple, 1-dimensional myoelectric target tracking task 

was used to test control. The task visuals and processing 

were written in Python, using the AxoPy library.36 The task 
comprised dynamic on-screen targets which rise, hold and 

fall from the minimum EMG value scaled to two target 

heights: 25% and 100% of the comfortable EMG 

contraction, as shown in Figure 3(b). Participants were 

instructed to hold their arm in the position established during 

calibration and to track the target with the cursor.  

    

 

Figure 2: Experimental conditions tested. The approximate location of the wrist extensors and flexors are shown relative to the positions of 

the rig during the different data acquisition configurations and the corresponding locations of bar 1, 2, 3 and 4. “S” represents the location of 

the EMG electrode throughout all three configurations. (a): Uncompressed configuration; (b): Relief configuration; (c): Compressed 

configuration. 

  Uncompressed                                         Relief                                                  Compressed 

Forearm cross-section 

Extensors Extensors Extensors 

Flexors Flexors Flexors 

 a)                                                         b)                                                              c) 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

5 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 

The cursor was controlled by the normalised muscle activity 

of the extensor group, as shown in Figure 3(c). Each task 

block consisted of 20 trials - 10 low targets and 10 high 

targets displayed in random order. Each trial was the same 

duration, regardless of whether the target was low or high, 

hence the high targets moved faster than the lower targets 

to rise, hold and fall within the same timeframe. Participants 

completed one familiarisation block of 20 trials, which was 

not included in the analysis. Four blocks of 20 trials were 

recorded in each configuration producing a total of 240 trials 

per participant. Each participant performed the control task 

in all three configurations. The testing order for the 

configurations was balanced between participants. 

Data from each control trial was split into three time-periods: 

rise, hold, and fall, corresponding to the target motion. The 

absolute deviation of the normalised MAV from the target 

was calculated for each data point, and a numerical mean 

calculated. Participant averages were calculated to provide 

twelve average scores per time-period, per configuration. 

Score distributions were checked for normality using a 

Shapiro-Wilks test. The majority of data sets were found to 

be non-normally distributed (p < 0.05). Friedman tests were 

used to check for statistical differences between the three 

rig configurations for: 1) the rise, hold and fall section of the 

trial, and 2) between the low and high targets. 

    Pressure 

For configurations relief and compression, the pressure 

applied by the rig was fine-tuned manually before 

commencing data acquisition. The acceptable pressure 

range was 5.3-10.7kPa (40-80 mmHg) with the arm in the 

neutral position, with the ideal range being 6.7-9.3kPa (50-

70mmHg). During the compressed configuration, bar 1 

compressed the approximate area of the extensors and bar 

3 compressed the approximate area of the flexors. Although 

both were within the target 6.7-9.3kPa (50-70mmHg) 

pressure range, the pressure exerted onto the extensors by 

bar 1 was consistently around 2kPa (15mmHg) higher than 

that exerted onto the flexors by bar 3. This is due to 

anatomical differences. The extensors are a larger muscle 

group than the flexors, providing more cushioning and 

tissue compliance. Additionally, bar 1 is aligned with the 

belly of the extensors, whereas bar 3 is closer to the bone 

and above the approximate area of the flexors. The 

enhanced tissue cushioning and alignment of bar 1 allow a 

higher pressure to be achieved than bar 3. It is assumed 

that individuals with acquired limb differences would 

generally have a similar muscle structure to the able-bodied 

volunteers, however individuals with congenital limb 

differences would show more varied limb structures. 

Regardless, the simulator was designed to be fine-tuned to 

Figure 3: a) A photo of the compression simulator being worn. Note the limb is extended more than the 90° than described in the text to obtain 

a clear picture. b) An example of what the task looked like on screen as presented to the participants. The white line is the moving target, and 

the green ball is the cursor which participants control with their EMG activity. c) An example plots from a high-target task with the corresponding 

EMG activity showing the participant tracking the height of the cursor. Only the three gray areas highlighted in the graph were used to calculate 

participant scores, corresponding to the rise, the hold period, and fall of the on-screen target. 

Time (seconds) 

Target Height 

Normalised MAV EMG 

T
a
rg

e
t 
H

e
ig

h
t 

Rise        Hold        Fall 

a) b) 

c) 

Target held 

 

T
a

rg
e
t 

ri
s
in

g
 

 

T
a

rg
e
t 

fa
lli

n
g
 

 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

6 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
fit each individual’s limb, with the aim of achieving 

approximately equal compression provided by all four bars. 

The intention of this analysis was to gauge whether 

longitudinal compression could prevent electrode lift-off. 

Hence, only the compressed configuration data was 

assessed for this section as it allows recording of both EMG 

and pressure data directly above the EMG site. The average 

rise and fall of pressure recorded from bar 1, the EMG-

bearing extensor bar, and bar 3, the flexor bar, throughout 

all compressed trials was calculated to assess the effect of 

muscle contraction on EMG sensor pressure within the 

compression simulator. 

Data recorded during compression conditions were 

separated into two groups: high targets and low targets. For 

both groups, data points recording pressure change and 

EMG activity were averaged to observe mean fluctuation 

during the trial. 

    Fatigue 

The effect of longitudinal compression on forearm fatigue 

was tested using a bi-manual task. Participants’ forearm 

extensors were located on both arms as described in 

section Control and an EMG sensor was affixed to both 

forearms above the extensors. The position of the sensors 

was validated on screen as described in section Control. 

The compression simulator was applied to one arm as 

described in the compressed configuration. Participants 

were asked to grip two identical dynamometers, using their 

maximum grip strength i.e., a sustained isometric maximal 

contraction, for as long as they felt they could, and to 

release them simultaneously. This test was based on similar 

methodology described by Klass et. al39 and Gillani et. Al.40 

Handheld dynamometers were chosen for this experiment 

to avoid the use of unnecessary custom hardware. Testing 

order was balanced so that compression was applied to the 

dominant arm and non-dominant arm on an equal number 

of instances to minimise the effect of structural 

differences.41-44 The physiological effects of fatigue on 

muscles vary depending on the intensity and duration of the 

fatiguing task, as well as the muscle being observed.24,45 

Pilot experiments were conducted, and the volunteers 

reported feeling muscle fatigue for several hours after 

conducting the single maximal grip strength task. Due to 

this, the fatigue task was only performed once per 

participant to avoid a multi-day experiment which may have 

introduced more variance between performance. The two 

configurations selected to be compared were 

uncompressed and compressed, as this allowed a direct 

comparison of the extensors with and without external 

pressure. Hence, the relief configuration was eliminated for 

this task. 

For each participant’s individual pair of compressed and 

uncompressed EMG recordings, the “active data” was 

analysed, i.e., the entire duration of the participant’s 

contraction. The length of each pair of recordings varied 

depending on how long the participant contracted their 

muscles during the fatigue task. Hence, for each condition, 

a median frequency analysis was performed using 1 second 

intervals. Observing changes to the median frequency of an 

EMG recording is a well-established method of gauging 

muscle fatigue.46 A percentage difference was calculated 

for each participant, based on the difference between the 

first and last datapoints of the median frequency analysis. 

Shapiro-Wilks tests were used to check for normality in 

percentage decreases. None of the datasets were found to 

be non-normally distributed (p < 0.05). Wilcoxon’s rank (p < 

0.05) was used to check for significance between the 

conditions. The Shapiro-Wilks test and Wilcoxon’s rank 

analysis were repeated with data split into dominant arm 

recordings and non-dominant arm recordings, to assess 

whether limb dominance influenced fatigue. 

RESULTS 

Experimental results from the control task, the pressure 

analysis and the fatigue task are detailed in the following 

sections. 

Control 

Average scores for the rise, hold and fall period of the task 

are shown in Figure 4(a). Average scores for low target and 

high target trials for each condition are shown in Figure 4(b). 

There was no significant difference between any conditions 

during the rise (p = 0.717), hold (p = 0.920) and fall (p = 

0.717) periods. The results for the rise, hold and fall periods 

were similar, with a small decrease in error for the fall 

period. As would be expected, there was a notably higher 

error for the faster-moving high target trials than low target 

trials. However, there was no significant difference (p < 

0.05) in average scores between conditions for either high 

(p = 0.77) or low (p = 0.368) targets. An assessment of 

individual participant performance revealed a weak trend  

R2 = 0.349 of error reduction as the trials progressed, shown 

in Appendix A. 

Pressure 

Figure 5(a) shows the mean fluctuations in pressure data 

recorded during all trials split by high and low targets for bar 

1, located above the wrist extensors, and bar 3, located 

approximately above the wrist flexors, and Figure 5(b) 

shows the corresponding EMG data. Recordings from both 

the extensor bar and flexor bar showed an increase in 

pressure during contractions at the opposing sides of the rig 

for both high and low targets. Due to the anatomical 

differences described in section Pressure (Methodology), 

the pressure recorded from bar 1, above the extensors, was 

consistently around 2kPa (15 mmHg) higher than the 

pressure recorded from bar 3, above the flexors. Despite 

this, the fluctuation followed the same pattern for both bars 

in both high and low target groups.  

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

7 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 

The results of this test showed that pressure rose at 

opposing sides of the socket simulator during contractions. 

Fatigue 

Figure 6 shows a comparison of rates of fatigue for the 

dominant vs. non-dominant arm, and the compressed vs. 

uncompressed arm. There was no significant difference in 

the mean rate of fatigue between participants’ arms in the 

compressed and uncompressed conditions (p = 0.182), but 

the mean reduction in median frequency was marginally 

lower for the compressed configuration than the 

uncompressed. Similarly, there was no significant 

difference between the dominant and nondominant arm 

rates of fatigue (p = 1). The results of this test showed that 

longitudinal compression applied to the forearm muscles 

during a high-intensity task did not produce the same 

Figure 4: Results from the myoelectric target tracking control tasks. Mean absolute deviation from the target for (a) the rise, hold and fall 

periods for all trials (b) low targets and high targets. In all box plots, the upper and lower box boundaries represent the respective upper and 

lower quartiles, the whiskers represent the maximum and minimum excluding outliers, and the centre line represents the median. 

Figure 5: The mean EMG recording and corresponding pressure recordings from the extensors (shown in blue) and flexors (shown in red) 

from a) the low target trials and b) the high target trials, across all compressed trials from all participants. The black line represents the EMG 

target height, and the shaded bands show the standard deviation. For the EMG recordings, only the period where the target is rising, held, or 

falling in height is shown, as participants where not assessed outside of this period. The pressure recorded above the extensors was 

consistently around 2kPa (15 mmHg) higher than the pressure recorded above the flexors due to anatomical differences described in detail in 

section 2.2.2. 

Uncompressed 

Relief 

Compressed 

Rise 

Hold 

Fall 

Rise                         Hold                        Fall Low Target                  High Target 

M
e

a
n
 D

e
v
ia

ti
o

n
 F

ro
m

 T
a

rg
e

t 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

8 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
fatigue-reducing effect observed with compression 

garments.28 

DISCUSSION 

The aim of this study was to assess and quantify the effect 

of longitudinal compression on fundamental factors 

affecting EMG prosthesis wearability: control, maintenance 

of contact between the electrodes and the skin, and fatigue. 

The results of this investigation indicated that moderate 

longitudinal compression had no significant effect on the 

participants closed-loop control abilities in our myoelectric 

target tracking task. On average, the participants showed a 

weak trend of improvement (R2 = 0.349) as the control task 

progressed, as shown in Appendix A. This trend is likely to 

be indicative of participants learning to perform the task and 

will account for some of the variability within the scores. 

Given the data presented it is unlikely that this variability 

influenced the results. The results from the control task 

indicate that when selecting a socket design featuring 

selective longitudinal compression, alternative factors such 

as fit and comfort should be prioritised over the EMG control 

capability provided by the socket. 

Most conventional clinical trans-radial sockets feature a 

rigid socket design within which EMG sensors are recessed 

into the socket wall.3 The extensor carpi radialis and flexor 

carpi radialis are common muscle sites for dual-channel 

EMG control, located approximately equidistant around the 

forearm. This design is susceptible to “electrode lift-off” - 

during movements, contractions or loadbearing, the 

residual limb presses against one side of the socket.3,15 

This can cause the opposing side to disengage with the 

socket wall and the electrode embedded within it, leading to 

a loss of contact between the electrode and skin.3,15 

Pressure data recordings during compressed configuration 

trials, as shown in Figure 5, suggest that integrating 

electrodes into longitudinal compression bars can be used 

to maintain pressure at the socket-skin interface during 

muscle contractions. This study used a simulator as using 

real sockets was out of scope for the research. Hence, a 

follow-on study utilising real sockets should be conducted. 

Rates of forearm fatigue observed during a short burst of 

intense physical activity did not differ between compressed 

and uncompressed arm conditions, however the reduction 

in median frequency was marginally smaller for the 

compressed configuration, i.e., the limb fatigued slightly 

less than in the uncompressed configuration. No significant 

difference was observed in rates of fatigue between the 

dominant and non-dominant limb, making it unlikely that this 

balancing condition had any influence on results. It is 

important to note that, due to the lack of specialised 

equipment, this study featured a standard dynamometer 

and tested hand-grip strength rather than fatiguing the wrist 

extensors. Commonly, studies assessing compression for 

sporting purposes are conducted over several, longer 

recording sessions,24,26,27,47,48 whereas this study looked at 

one recording of maximum muscle contraction from the 

participants. Further research is therefore necessary to be 

certain about any relationship between longitudinal 

compression and limb fatigue. 

In summary, both the myoelectric control and fatigue data 

indicated that the properties of longitudinal compression 

sockets have little influence on factors relevant for EMG 

based control of an upper-limb prosthesis while pressure 

data suggests longitudinal compression bars could be used 

to maintain electrode contact during prosthesis use. 

Compression struts in longitudinal compression sockets are 

intended to displace tissue in order to reduce lost motion. 

Further research will be necessary to determine whether it 

is possible to design struts which are able to displace tissue 

whilst also sensing the EMG activity at a signal to noise ratio 

sufficient for prosthesis control. 

Able-bodied participants were recruited to minimise the 

effect of variation in limb length and structure. This allowed 

a fair comparison between different compression 

configurations. Hence, a simulator was designed to allow 

the inclusion of able-bodied volunteers. The literature 

linking compression simulators to real longitudinal 

compression sockets is sparse, with the only known 

previous example being Sang, et al.49 It is assumed that the 

majority of acquired trans-radial amputees would have a 

similar muscle structure to able-bodied individuals, however 

they may require shorter or narrower compression bars, to 

suit the length and shape of their residuum. Future 

Figure 6: Rates of fatigue for the dominant vs. nondominant arm, 

and the compressed vs. uncompressed arm. The rate of fatigue is 

measured as the scalar of the trendline for the median frequency 

analysis of EMG recordings of each arm. The upper and lower box 

boundaries represent the respective upper and lower quartiles, the 

whiskers represent the maximum and minimum excluding outliers, 

and the centre line represents the median. 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

9 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
experiments should include amputees, ideally those who 

regularly use a myoelectric device. 

Limitations 

As preliminary research in this area, this study featured a 

number of limitations. The socket simulator designed for this 

study did not allow for any form of distal loading to simulate 

wearing a terminal device. Loading will affect many of the 

factors analysed in this study and will be considered in 

follow-on studies. Additionally, the control task and pressure 

data were captured at 90 degrees elbow flexion only. To 

further understand the effect of longitudinal compression on 

myoelectric control, future experiments should capture a 

variety of arm positions. This socket simulator also featured 

compression bars in an equidistant design around the limb. 

This design allowed us to test whether localised, 

longitudinal compression altered EMG properties for single 

channel control. Adjustable compression bar positions will 

be necessary to test whether results generalise to multi-

channel EMG and pressure-maintenance across various 

sensor sites. 

CONCLUSION 

Longitudinal compression in an equally distributed 4-bar 

socket simulator does not inhibit single-channel EMG 

control, nor does it improve fatigue performance of the wrist-

extensors during a high-intensity, short-duration 

contraction. Pressure data reported in this study indicated 

that longitudinal compression, when applied tangential to 

the muscle, help maintain overall contact between the skin 

and the socket at opposing sides. Therefore, longitudinal 

compression sockets may improve multi-channel EMG 

control in a design which integrates the EMG sensors into 

the compression struts.   

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank Sarah Winlow for her proofreading 

and feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript. 

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING 

INTERESTS 

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the 

absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be 

construed as a potential conflict of interest. 

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION 

Jennifer Olsen: writing (original draft preparation).  

Jennifer Olsen, Sarah Day, Sigrid Dupan, Kianoush Nazarpour, 

Matthew Dyson: conceptualization, writing (review and editing).  

All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the 

manuscript. 

 

SOURCES OF SUPPORT 

This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences 

Research Council (EPSRC), U.K., under studentship number 

2281137 from EP/N509528/1 and EP/R51309X/1 (JO). 

ETHICAL APPROVAL 

The local ethics committee at Newcastle University approved this 

study (Ref: #11532/2020 and #20-DYS-050). 

REFERENCES 

1.Imran A, Escobar W, Barez F. Design of an affordable prosthetic 

arm equipped with deep learning vision-based manipulation. 

InASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and 

Exposition 2021 Nov 1 (Vol. 85604, p. V006T06A017). American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers. DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2103.02099 

2.Resnik L, Meucci MR, Lieberman-Klinger S, Fantini C, Kelty DL, 

Disla R, et al. Advanced upper limb prosthetic devices: implications 

for upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 

2012;93(4):710-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.010 

3.Head J. The effect of socket movement and electrode contact on 

myoelectric prosthesis control during daily living activities (PhD 

Thesis). University of Salford (United Kingdom); 2014. 

http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/30774/ 

4.Vujaklija I, Farina D, Aszmann OC. New developments in 

prosthetic arm systems. Orthop Res Rev. 2016;8:31. DOI: 10.2147/ 

ORR.S71468 

5.Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. 3D-Printing 

and upper-limb prosthetic sockets: Promises and pitfalls. IEEE 

Trans Neural Syst Rehabilitation Eng. 2021;29:527-35. DOI: 

10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3057984 

6.Lake C. The evolution of upper limb prosthetic socket design. J 

Prosthet Orthot. 2008;20(3):85-92. DOI: 10.1097/JPO. 

0b013e31817d2f08 

7.Miguelez JM, Lake C, Conyers D, Zenie J. The transradial 

anatomically contoured (TRAC) interface: design principles and 

methodology. J Prosthet Orthot. 2003;15(4):148-57. DOI: 10.1097/ 

00008526-200310000-00007 

8.The promise of assistive technology to enhance activity and  

work participation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press 

(US); 2017; Available from: 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK453289/. DOI:10.17226/ 

24740 

9.Clement RG, Bugler KE, Oliver CW. Bionic prosthetic hands: A 

review of present technology and future aspirations. Surgeon. 2011 

;9(6):336-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2011.06.001 

10.Salminger S, Stino H, Pichler LH, Gstoettner C, Sturma A, 

Mayer JA, et al. Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb 

amputees–have innovations had an impact on device acceptance?. 

Disabil Rehabil. 2020;21:1-2. DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2020. 

1866684 

11.Hermens H, Stramigioli S, Rietman H, Veltink P, Misra S. 

Myoelectric forearm prostheses: State of the art from a user-

centered perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):719. DOI: 

10.1682/jrrd.2010.08.0161 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963
http://usir.salford.ac.uk/id/eprint/30774/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK453289/


 

10 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
12.Biddiss EA, Chau TT. Upper limb prosthesis use and 

abandonment: a survey of the last 25 years. Prosthet Orthot Int. 

2007;31(3):236-57. DOI: 10.1080/03093640600994581 

13.McFarland LV, Hubbard Winkler SL, Heinemann AW, Jones M, 

Esquenazi A. Unilateral upper-limb loss: satisfaction and 

prosthetic-device use in veterans and servicemembers from 

Vietnam and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010; 

47(4):299-316. 

14.Smail LC, Neal C, Wilkins C, Packham TL. Comfort and function 

remain key factors in upper limb prosthetic abandonment: findings 

of a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 

2021;16(8):821-30. DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2020.1738567 

15.Head JS, Howard D, Hutchins SW, Kenney L, Heath GH, 

Aksenov AY. The use of an adjustable electrode housing unit to 

compare electrode alignment and contact variation with myoelectric 

prosthesis functionality: A pilot study. Prosthet Orthot Int. 

2016;40(1):123-8. DOI: 10.1177/0309364614545417 

16.Chadwell A, Kenney L, Thies S, Galpin A, Head J. The reality of 

myoelectric prostheses: understanding what makes these devices 

difficult for some users to control. Front Neurorobot. 2016;10:7. 

DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2016.00007 

17.Fang Y, Hettiarachchi N, Zhou D, Liu H. Multi-modal sensing 

techniques for interfacing hand prostheses: A review. IEEE Sens J. 

2015;15(11):6065-76. DOI: 10.1109/JSEN.2015.2450211 

18.Belter JT, Dollar AM. Performance characteristics of 

anthropomorphic prosthetic hands. In 2011 IEEE International 

Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics. 2011; 1-7. DOI: 10.1109/ 

ICORR.2011.5975476 

19.Trejo-Letechipia MA, Rodriguez-Sanchez DA, González-

González RB, Perez-Sanpablo AI, Arizmendi-Morquecho AM, 

Lara-Ceniceros TE, et al. Design and manufacturing of a body-

powered hook with force regulation system and composite-based 

nanomaterials. Appl. 2021;11(9):4225. DOI: 10.3390/app11094225 

20.Alley RD, Williams TW, Albuquerque MJ, Altobelli DE. 

Prosthetic sockets stabilized by alternating areas of tissue 

compression and release. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2011;48(6):679-96. 

DOI: 10.1682/jrrd.2009.12.0197 

21.Sang Y, Li X, Luo Y. Biomechanical design considerations for 

transradial prosthetic interface: A review. Proc Inst Mech Eng H P I 

MECH ENG H. 2016;230(3):239-50. DOI: 10.1177/ 

0954411915624452 

22.Alley RD. Advancement of upper extremity prosthetic interface 

and frame design. MEC '02 The Next Generation, Proceedings of 

the 2002 MyoElectric Controls/Powered Prosthetics Symposium 

Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada: August 21–23, 2002.  

23.Morrison H. Gran who lost limbs from septic paper cut can't wait 

to eat burger with bionic hand [Internet]. Glasgow Times. 2021; 

[cited 2 August 2021]. Available from: 

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18994494.glasgow-

hospital-patient-becomes-first-benefit-bionic-hand/ 

24.Sperlich B, Born DP, Swarén M, Kilian Y, Geesmann B, Kohl-

Bareis M, et al. Is leg compression beneficial for alpine skiers?. 

BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabilitation. 2013;5(1):1-2. DOI: 10.1186/ 

2052-1847-5-18 

25.Balcombe L, Miller C, McGuiness W. Approaches to the 

application and removal of compression therapy: A literature 

review. Br J Community Nurs. 2017;22(Sup10):S6-14. DOI: 

10.12968/bjcn.2017.22(Sup10)S6-14 

26.Snyder CJ. The influence of a directional compression garment 

on muscle activity and performance in recreational alpine skiers 

(PhD Thesis). Montana State University-Bozeman, College of 

Education, Health & Human Development), 2018. 
https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/14591 

27.Hsu WC, Tseng LW, Chen FC, Wang LC, Yang WW, Lin YJ, et 

al. Effects of compression garments on surface EMG and 

physiological responses during and after distance running. J Sport 

Health Sci. 2020;9(6):685-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2017.01.001 

28.Wang X, Xia R, Fu W. Reduced muscle activity during isokinetic 

contractions associated with external leg compression. Technol 

Health Care. 2016;24(s2):S533-9. DOI: 10.3233/THC-161179 

29.Moffatt C. Wound Essentials 3: Problem solving - preventing 

pressure damage. Wound Essentials. 2010; 3:48-58. 

https://www.woundsinternational.com/resources/details/wound-

essentials-3-problem-solving-preventing-pressure-damage 

30.Karadağ-Saygı E, Giray E. The clinical aspects and 

effectiveness of suit therapies for cerebral palsy: A systematic 

review. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;65(1):93. DOI: 10.5606/ 

tftrd.2019.3431 

31.Gefen A. The biomechanics of sitting‐acquired pressure ulcers 

in patients with spinal cord injury or lesions. Int. Wound J. 

2007;4(3):222-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00330.x 

32.Chang WL, Seigreg AA. Prediction of ulcer formation on the 

skin. Med. Hypotheses. 1999;53(2):141-4. DOI: 10.1054/mehy. 

1998.0733 

33.Lim CS, Davies AH. Graduated compression stockings. CMAJ. 

2014;186(10):E391-8. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.131281 

34.Vaena ML, Sinnecker JP, Pinto BB, Neves MF, Serra-

Guimarães F, Marques RG. Effects of local pressure on cutaneous 

blood flow in pigs. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2017;44:498-504. DOI: 

10.1590/0100-69912017005012 

35.Bluestein D, Javaheri A. Pressure ulcers: prevention, 

evaluation, and management. Am Fam Physician. 

2008;78(10):1186-94.  

36.Lyons KR. AxoPy: A Python library for implementing human-

computer interface experiments. J Open Source Softw. 

2019;4(34):1191. DOI: 10.21105/joss.01191 

37.Alley RD, Williams III TW, inventors. Methods for bone 

stabilization. United States patent US 10,702,404. 2020 July 7. 

38.Dupan SS, Krasoulis A, Nazarpour K. Intramuscular EMG for 

abstract myoelectric control: A proof of concept study. In 2020 42nd 

Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in 

Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) 2020; 3277-3280. IEEE. DOI: 

10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9175402 

39.Klass M, Levenez M, Enoka RM, Duchateau J. Spinal 

mechanisms contribute to differences in the time to failure of 

submaximal fatiguing contractions performed with different loads. J 

Neurophysiol. 2008;99(3):1096-104. DOI: 10.1152/jn.01252.2007 

40.Gillani NV, Ghista DN. Muscle fatigue induced by sustained 

isometric contraction. Hum. Factors. 1973;15(1):67-73. DOI: 

10.1177/001872087301500108 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18994494.glasgow-hospital-patient-becomes-first-benefit-bionic-hand/
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/18994494.glasgow-hospital-patient-becomes-first-benefit-bionic-hand/
https://scholarworks.montana.edu/xmlui/handle/1/14591
https://www.woundsinternational.com/resources/details/wound-essentials-3-problem-solving-preventing-pressure-damage
https://www.woundsinternational.com/resources/details/wound-essentials-3-problem-solving-preventing-pressure-damage


 

11 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
41.Vanswearingen JM. Measuring wrist muscle strength. J Orthop 

Sports Phys Ther. 1983;4(4):217-28. DOI: 10.2519/JOSPT.1983. 

4.4.217 

42.Decostre V, Canal A, Ollivier G, Ledoux I, Moraux A, Doppler V, 

et al. Wrist flexion and extension torques measured by highly 

sensitive dynamometer in healthy subjects from 5 to 80 years. BMC 

Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16(1):1-1. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-015-

0458-9 

43.Williams DM, Sharma S, Bilodeau M. Neuromuscular fatigue of 

elbow flexor muscles of dominant and non-dominant arms in 

healthy humans. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2002;12(4):287-94. DOI: 

10.1016/s1050-6411(02)00024-x 

44.Adam A, Luca CJ, Erim Z. Hand dominance and motor unit firing 

behavior. J. Neurophysiol. 1998;80(3):1373-82. DOI: 10.1152/jn. 

1998.80.3.1373 

45.Walker S, Davis L, Avela J, Häkkinen K. Neuromuscular fatigue 

during dynamic maximal strength and hypertrophic resistance 

loadings.  J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2012;22(3):356-62. DOI: 

10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.12.009 

46.Allison GT, Fujiwara T. The relationship between EMG median 

frequency and low frequency band amplitude changes at different 

levels of muscle capacity. Clin Biomech. 2002;17(6):464-9. DOI: 

10.1016/S0268-0033(02)00033-5 

47.Zavala L, Snyder C, Becker J, Seifert J. Directional compression 

and muscle activity in a retired world cup alpine skier. ISBS 

Proceedings Archive. 2017;35(1):215.  

48.Sperlich B, Born DP, Zinner C, Hauser A, Holmberg HC. Does 

upper-body compression improve 3× 3-min double-poling sprint 

performance?. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9(1):48-57. DOI: 

10.1123/ijspp.2013-0137 

49.Sang Y, Li X, Luo Y. Characteristics of a volume-adjustable 

compression chamber for transradial prosthetic interface. Proc Inst 

Mech Eng H P I MECH ENG H. 2016;230(7):650-60. DOI: 

10.1177/0954411916645132 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963


 

12 

Olsen J, Day S, Dupan S, Nazarpour K, Dyson M. Does trans-radial longitudinal compression influence myoelectric control? Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics 
Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 2, No.2. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963 

ISSN: 2561-987X LONGITUDINAL COMPRESSION SOCKETS: MYOELECTRIC CONTROL 

Olsen et al., 2022 CPOJ 

 
Appendix A: All participants' mean average deviation from target 

over trials 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i2.37963

