AmputeesTHE_FBHANDNCT07418645
Evaluation of a Multimodal Tactile Feedback System for Upper Limb-loss Users: Embodiment and Performance
A study testing Pressure and vibrotactile feedbak, Pressure feedback and Vibrotactile feedback in people with Amputees, run by University of Pisa at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of integrating tactile feedback systems into a robotic upper-limb prosthesis. These systems deliver pressure stimuli (through small silicone chambers that inflate), vibration stimuli (through small circular actuators), or a combination of both to the arm, in order to… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Amputees
- What is being tested?
- Pressure and vibrotactile feedbak, Pressure feedback and Vibrotactile feedback
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 9 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 9 Jan 2026to Dec 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Presence of a stump at the transradial level
- Active lifestyle (i.e., K-level K4, according to Medicare functional level classification)
- Ability to understand and provide Informed Consent to participate in the study - Ability to participate in experimental acquisitions
Who cannot join
- Bilateral transradial amputation
- Learning disabilities
- Inability to understand the informed consent form
- History or evidence of any medical, neurological or psychiatric conditions, which may affect brain function, metabolism, balance or motion, perception, representing, thus, a contraindication to the study (also stump pain or tenderness), other than the medical conditions or pathologies that have caused the upper-limb amputation
- Hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and other endocrine diseases, neuromuscular diseases, malignancies
- Vision and/or hearing problems severe enough to interfere with experimental procedures
- Carrier of infectious diseases
- Alcoholism or other substance abuse
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Italy1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Department of Neurorehabilitation, Univeristy Hospital of Pisa
Pisa, PI, 56124
Valentina Azzollini, MD, +39 050996734, valentina.azzollini@unipi.it
About this study
Official title: ENG: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Feedback Device Fully Integrated Within a Prosthesis for Users With Upper Limb Amputation. IT: Valutazione Dell'Efficacia di un Dispositivo di Feedback Completamente Integrato All'Interno di Una Protesi, Per Utenti Che Presentano Amputazione Dell'Arto Superiore.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of integrating tactile feedback systems into a robotic upper-limb prosthesis. These systems deliver pressure stimuli (through small silicone chambers that inflate), vibration stimuli (through small circular actuators), or a combination of both to the arm, in order to improve the feeling of owning and controlling the artificial hand. In this way, when the robotic hand touches, grasps, and holds an object, the user receives sensory feedback that may make prosthesis use more natural, intuitive, and functional in everyday life. This is expected to improve the sense of bodily integration of the prosthesis, particularly by enhancing the perception of owning the bionic limb and the feeling of control over it, thereby improving the ability to perform daily activities with the prosthesis.
In addition, the study aims to investigate whether the simultaneous delivery of multiple stimuli may confuse or discomfort the user or they are well integrated by the sensitive system improving the experience of tactile sensation.
Read more
This is a pilot, open-label study, meaning that both the researchers and the participants will be aware of the different phases of the study. The study population will include individuals with unilateral transradial upper-limb loss, either acquired or congenital. The planned sample size is 9 participants who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria and who provide written informed consent to take part in the study.
The study consists of two phases. Phase 1: Rubber Hand Illusion experiment During this phase, the feedback devices called WISH (pressure sensation provided by the inflation of silicone chambers), VIBES (vibration sensation), and PUSE (both devices applied and activated together to provide both sensations, either synchronously or with minimal delay) will be placed on the residual limb and secured with elastic Velcro straps. A robotic hand, controlled by the participant through electromyographic sensors, will be positioned on a table in front of the participant. The participant will see the robotic hand move while receiving sensory feedback synchronized with its movements. Different stimulation conditions (pressure only, vibration only, and combined feedback) will be tested. At the end of each condition, a questionnaire will be administered to assess the perception of ownership and agency.
Phase 2: Upper-limb prosthesis use In the second phase, the actuators will be integrated into the socket of a SoftHand robotic prosthesis, a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis. Participants will be asked to wear the prosthesis and perform tasks under each of the feedback conditions tested in Phase 1. After a free-use familiarization period of approximately 10 minutes, participants will be asked to perform tasks involving object and surface recognition, as well as activities of daily living, which will be timed. The results of the different conditions will be compared to identify the feedback configuration associated with the best performance, defined as fewer errors and shorter execution time. At the end of each condition, a questionnaire will be administered to assess ease of use and tolerability of the prosthesis.
- Conditions
- Amputees
- Being tested
- Pressure and vibrotactile feedbak, Pressure feedback, Vibrotactile feedback
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Pressure and vibrotactile feedbakDevice
In this arm we will test the combination of a pressure and a vibrotactile feedback. The Prosthetic Upper Limb Sensory Enhancement (PULSE) device is a dual-feedback system, combining both the VIBES and WISH devices. It includes two silicone chambers (WISH) to transmit pressure stimuli related to grip force and two vibrotactile motors (VIBES) to provide high-frequency stimuli capable of conveying surface contact and texture signals. The subject will undergo a rubber hand illusion task, recognition task and daily live activity performance wearing the PULSE device.
Pressure feedbackDevice
The feedback configuration tested in this arm will give a pressure resembling the grip force of the robotic hand. The Wearable Integrated Soft Haptic (WISH) is a pneumatic device acting as a force feedback system, capable of transmitting pressure information related to the grip force of a robotic hand during grasping actions.
Vibrotactile feedbackDevice
We will evaluate the Vibro-Inertial Bionic Enhancement System (VIBES). This device can convert acceleration information from Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) into vibratory stimuli that can be associated with texture and first contact with an object. The subject will undergo a rubber hand illusion task, recognition task and daily live activity performance wearing the VIBES device.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PULSE | Experimental | This is the experimental arm, in wich the subjects will use a device with a combined feedback, giving both a force grip sensation and tactile first touch and texture sensation. Receives: Device: Pressure and vibrotactile feedbak |
| WISH | Active comparator | Subjects in this arm will wear a pressure feedback while performing a rubber hand illusion task, recognition task and daily live activity . Receives: Device: Pressure feedback |
| VIBES | Active comparator | This arm will test a feddback focusing on the first contact and texture information, the information will be driven by a vibration during all the task described above. Receives: Device: Vibrotactile feedback |
| Control | No intervention | In this arm all the procedure described in the study (rubber hand illusion, recognition task and daily live activity erformance) will be performed without any feedback. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Embodiment
A 7-point Likert scale-basede questionnaire will be use to determine the sense of embodiment.
Scores range from "-3" to "+3", where "-3" indicates "completely disagree" and "+3" indicates "completely agree"
Measured: Day 1: Timepoint(T) - 0 "Baseline, pre-procedure"; T - 1 "immediately after the first aptic feedback tested"; T - 2 "immediately after the second aptic feedback tested"; T - 3 "immediately after the third aptic feddback tested".
Secondary outcomes (2)
Discrimination capability
Number of object recognized and errors during the discrimination task will be recorded
Measured: Day 2: Timepoint(T') - 0 "Baseline, pre-procedure"; T' - 1 "immediately after the first aptic feedback tested"; T' - 2 "immediately after the second aptic feedback tested"; T' - 3 "immediately after the third aptic feddback tested".
Activity test
The subject will perform a list of daily living activity. The researcher will time every activity and asses the percentual of integration of the prostetic limb in the activity. The activity performed will be:
Unscrew and screw the cap of a water bottle Cut a piece of modeling clay using a knife and fork Unscrew and screw the lid of a jar Tear a sheet of paper into four pieces Draw a straight line on a sheet of paper using a ruler and pencil Cut a sheet of paper in half using scissors Fold a sheet of paper and place it into an envelope pen a sealed envelope Staple sheets of paper Close a shoe box with a ribbon Tie a scarf Open and close the zipper of a pencil case Squeeze toothpaste onto a toothbrush Spread a tablecloth on a table Roll up a poster and secure it with a rubber band Unscrew and screw the cap of a child-resistant medication bottle Open a glasses case and take out the pair of glasses Open a packet of paper tissues and take out one tissue Move a shoe box
Measured: Day 2: Timepoint(T') - 0 "Baseline, pre-procedure"; T' - 1 "immediately after the first aptic feedback tested"; T' - 2 "immediately after the second aptic feedback tested"; T' - 3 "immediately after the third aptic feddback tested".
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Feb 2026
- Study start9 Jan 2026
- Primary completionAug 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AmputeesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Device feasibility
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- All the subjects test all the conditions after a waashout period between the different trial.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 9 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Pisa
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Valentina Azzollini, University of Pisa
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07418645
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- THE_FBHAND
- Acronym
- THE_FBHAND
- Status last verified
- Jan 2026
- First submitted
- 21 Jan 2026
- Last updated
- 18 Feb 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Ivani AS, Barontini F, Catalano MG, Grioli G, Bianchi M, Bicchi A. VIBES: Vibro-Inertial Bionic Enhancement System in a Prosthetic Socket. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2023 Sep;2023:1-6. doi: 10.1109/ICORR58425.2023.10304768.
PubMed 37941194Ivani AS, Barontini F, Catalano MG, Grioli G, Bianchi M, Bicchi A. Characterization, Experimental Validation and Pilot User Study of the Vibro-Inertial Bionic Enhancement System (VIBES). IEEE Trans Haptics. 2025 Jan-Mar;18(1):32-44. doi: 10.1109/TOH.2024.3435588. Epub 2025 Mar 21.
PubMed 39078769Ivani AS, Catalano MG, Grioli G, Bianchi M, Visell Y, Bicchi A. Tactile Perception in Upper Limb Prostheses: Mechanical Characterization, Human Experiments, and Computational Findings. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2024 Oct-Dec;17(4):817-829. doi: 10.1109/TOH.2024.3436827. Epub 2024 Dec 19.
PubMed 39093675Sensinger JW, Dosen S. A Review of Sensory Feedback in Upper-Limb Prostheses From the Perspective of Human Motor Control. Front Neurosci. 2020 Jun 23;14:345. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00345. eCollection 2020.
PubMed 32655344Kaczmarek KA, Webster JG, Bach-y-Rita P, Tompkins WJ. Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitution systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991 Jan;38(1):1-16. doi: 10.1109/10.68204.
PubMed 2026426Tognetti A, Lorussi F, Bartalesi R, Quaglini S, Tesconi M, Zupone G, De Rossi D. Wearable kinesthetic system for capturing and classifying upper limb gesture in post-stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2005 Mar 2;2(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-2-8.
PubMed 15743530Rossi M, Bianchi M, Battaglia E, Catalano MG, Bicchi A. HapPro: A Wearable Haptic Device for Proprioceptive Feedback. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019 Jan;66(1):138-149. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2018.2836672. Epub 2018 May 15.
PubMed 29993527Svensson P, Wijk U, Bjorkman A, Antfolk C. A review of invasive and non-invasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017 Jun;14(6):439-447. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2017.1332989.
PubMed 28532184Navarro X, Krueger TB, Lago N, Micera S, Stieglitz T, Dario P. A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2005 Sep;10(3):229-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1085-9489.2005.10303.x.
PubMed 16221284Salminger S, Stino H, Pichler LH, Gstoettner C, Sturma A, Mayer JA, Szivak M, Aszmann OC. Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb amputees - have innovations had an impact on device acceptance? Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Jul;44(14):3708-3713. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1866684. Epub 2020 Dec 30.
PubMed 33377803Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):422-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005.
PubMed 18295618McDonald CL, Westcott-McCoy S, Weaver MR, Haagsma J, Kartin D. Global prevalence of traumatic non-fatal limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021 Apr 1;45(2):105-114. doi: 10.1177/0309364620972258.
PubMed 33274665
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Feb 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- ENG: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Feedback Device Fully Integrated Within a Prosthesis for Users With Upper Limb Amputation. IT: Valutazione Dell'Efficacia di un Dispositivo di Feedback Completamente Integrato All'Interno di Una Protesi, Per Utenti Che Presentano Amputazione Dell'Arto Superiore.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07418645
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- THE_FBHAND / THE_FBHAND
- Conditions
- Amputees
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 9 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of PisaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 9 Jan 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Aug 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 18 Feb 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of integrating tactile feedback systems into a robotic upper-limb prosthesis. These systems deliver pressure stimuli (through small silicone chambers that inflate), vibration stimuli (through small circular actuators), or a combination of both to the arm, in order to improve the feeling of owning and controlling the artificial hand. In this way, when the robotic hand touches, grasps, and holds an object, the user receives sensory feedback that may make prosthesis use more natural, intuitive, and functional in everyday life. This is expected to improve the sense of bodily integration of the prosthesis, particularly by enhancing the perception of owning the bionic limb and the feeling of control over it, thereby improving the ability to perform daily activities with the prosthesis.
In addition, the study aims to investigate whether the simultaneous delivery of multiple stimuli may confuse or discomfort the user or they are well integrated by the sensitive system improving the experience of tactile sensation.
This is a pilot, open-label study, meaning that both the researchers and the participants will be aware of the different phases of the study. The study population will include individuals with unilateral transradial upper-limb loss, either acquired or congenital. The planned sample size is 9 participants who meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria and who provide written informed consent to take part in the study.
The study consists of two phases. Phase 1: Rubber Hand Illusion experiment During this phase, the feedback devices called WISH (pressure sensation provided by the inflation of silicone chambers), VIBES (vibration sensation), and PUSE (both devices applied and activated together to provide both sensations, either synchronously or with minimal delay) will be placed on the residual limb and secured with elastic Velcro straps. A robotic hand, controlled by the participant through electromyographic sensors, will be positioned on a table in front of the participant. The participant will see the robotic hand move while receiving sensory feedback synchronized with its movements. Different stimulation conditions (pressure only, vibration only, and combined feedback) will be tested. At the end of each condition, a questionnaire will be administered to assess the perception of ownership and agency.
Phase 2: Upper-limb prosthesis use In the second phase, the actuators will be integrated into the socket of a SoftHand robotic prosthesis, a myoelectric upper-limb prosthesis. Participants will be asked to wear the prosthesis and perform tasks under each of the feedback conditions tested in Phase 1. After a free-use familiarization period of approximately 10 minutes, participants will be asked to perform tasks involving object and surface recognition, as well as activities of daily living, which will be timed. The results of the different conditions will be compared to identify the feedback configuration associated with the best performance, defined as fewer errors and shorter execution time. At the end of each condition, a questionnaire will be administered to assess ease of use and tolerability of the prosthesis.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Device feasibility
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
- Model description
- All the subjects test all the conditions after a waashout period between the different trial.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PULSE | Experimental | Device: Pressure and vibrotactile feedbakThis is the experimental arm, in wich the subjects will use a device with a combined feedback, giving both a force grip sensation and tactile first touch and texture sensation. |
| WISH | Active comparator | Device: Pressure feedbackSubjects in this arm will wear a pressure feedback while performing a rubber hand illusion task, recognition task and daily live activity . |
| VIBES | Active comparator | Device: Vibrotactile feedbackThis arm will test a feddback focusing on the first contact and texture information, the information will be driven by a vibration during all the task described above. |
| Control | No intervention | –In this arm all the procedure described in the study (rubber hand illusion, recognition task and daily live activity erformance) will be performed without any feedback. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Presence of a stump at the transradial level
- Active lifestyle (i.e., K-level K4, according to Medicare functional level classification)
- Ability to understand and provide Informed Consent to participate in the study - Ability to participate in experimental acquisitions
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Bilateral transradial amputation
- Learning disabilities
- Inability to understand the informed consent form
- History or evidence of any medical, neurological or psychiatric conditions, which may affect brain function, metabolism, balance or motion, perception, representing, thus, a contraindication to the study (also stump pain or tenderness), other than the medical conditions or pathologies that have caused the upper-limb amputation
- Hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and other endocrine diseases, neuromuscular diseases, malignancies
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Pressure and vibrotactile feedbakIn this arm we will test the combination of a pressure and a vibrotactile feedback. The Prosthetic Upper Limb Sensory Enhancement (PULSE) device is a dual-feedback system, combining both the VIBES and WISH devices. It includes two silicone chambers (WISH) to transmit pressure stimuli related to grip force and two vibrotactile motors (VIBES) to provide high-frequency stimuli capable of conveying surface contact and texture signals. The subject will undergo a rubber hand illusion task, recognition task and daily live activity performance wearing the PULSE device. | Device | PULSE |
| Pressure feedbackThe feedback configuration tested in this arm will give a pressure resembling the grip force of the robotic hand. The Wearable Integrated Soft Haptic (WISH) is a pneumatic device acting as a force feedback system, capable of transmitting pressure information related to the grip force of a robotic hand during grasping actions. | Device | WISH |
| Vibrotactile feedbackWe will evaluate the Vibro-Inertial Bionic Enhancement System (VIBES). This device can convert acceleration information from Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) into vibratory stimuli that can be associated with texture and first contact with an object. The subject will undergo a rubber hand illusion task, recognition task and daily live activity performance wearing the VIBES device. | Device | VIBES |
Primary outcome
Embodiment
Time frame: Day 1: Timepoint(T) - 0 "Baseline, pre-procedure"; T - 1 "immediately after the first aptic feedback tested"; T - 2 "immediately after the second aptic feedback tested"; T - 3 "immediately after the third aptic feddback tested".
A 7-point Likert scale-basede questionnaire will be use to determine the sense of embodiment. Scores range from "-3" to "+3", where "-3" indicates "completely disagree" and "+3" indicates "completely agree"
2 secondary outcomes
Discrimination capability
Time frame: Day 2: Timepoint(T') - 0 "Baseline, pre-procedure"; T' - 1 "immediately after the first aptic feedback tested"; T' - 2 "immediately after the second aptic feedback tested"; T' - 3 "immediately after the third aptic feddback tested".
Activity test
Time frame: Day 2: Timepoint(T') - 0 "Baseline, pre-procedure"; T' - 1 "immediately after the first aptic feedback tested"; T' - 2 "immediately after the second aptic feedback tested"; T' - 3 "immediately after the third aptic feddback tested".
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Feb 2026.
- Background: PubMed 37941194Ivani AS, Barontini F, Catalano MG, Grioli G, Bianchi M, Bicchi A. VIBES: Vibro-Inertial Bionic Enhancement System in a Prosthetic Socket. IEEE Int Conf Rehabil Robot. 2023 Sep;2023:1-6. doi: 10.1109/ICORR58425.2023.10304768.
- Background: PubMed 39078769Ivani AS, Barontini F, Catalano MG, Grioli G, Bianchi M, Bicchi A. Characterization, Experimental Validation and Pilot User Study of the Vibro-Inertial Bionic Enhancement System (VIBES). IEEE Trans Haptics. 2025 Jan-Mar;18(1):32-44. doi: 10.1109/TOH.2024.3435588. Epub 2025 Mar 21.
- Background: PubMed 39093675Ivani AS, Catalano MG, Grioli G, Bianchi M, Visell Y, Bicchi A. Tactile Perception in Upper Limb Prostheses: Mechanical Characterization, Human Experiments, and Computational Findings. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2024 Oct-Dec;17(4):817-829. doi: 10.1109/TOH.2024.3436827. Epub 2024 Dec 19.
- Background: PubMed 32655344Sensinger JW, Dosen S. A Review of Sensory Feedback in Upper-Limb Prostheses From the Perspective of Human Motor Control. Front Neurosci. 2020 Jun 23;14:345. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00345. eCollection 2020.
- Background: PubMed 2026426Kaczmarek KA, Webster JG, Bach-y-Rita P, Tompkins WJ. Electrotactile and vibrotactile displays for sensory substitution systems. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1991 Jan;38(1):1-16. doi: 10.1109/10.68204.
- Background: PubMed 15743530Tognetti A, Lorussi F, Bartalesi R, Quaglini S, Tesconi M, Zupone G, De Rossi D. Wearable kinesthetic system for capturing and classifying upper limb gesture in post-stroke rehabilitation. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2005 Mar 2;2(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-2-8.
- Background: PubMed 29993527Rossi M, Bianchi M, Battaglia E, Catalano MG, Bicchi A. HapPro: A Wearable Haptic Device for Proprioceptive Feedback. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019 Jan;66(1):138-149. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2018.2836672. Epub 2018 May 15.
- Background: PubMed 28532184Svensson P, Wijk U, Bjorkman A, Antfolk C. A review of invasive and non-invasive sensory feedback in upper limb prostheses. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017 Jun;14(6):439-447. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2017.1332989.
- Background: PubMed 16221284Navarro X, Krueger TB, Lago N, Micera S, Stieglitz T, Dario P. A critical review of interfaces with the peripheral nervous system for the control of neuroprostheses and hybrid bionic systems. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2005 Sep;10(3):229-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1085-9489.2005.10303.x.
- Background: PubMed 33377803Salminger S, Stino H, Pichler LH, Gstoettner C, Sturma A, Mayer JA, Szivak M, Aszmann OC. Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb amputees - have innovations had an impact on device acceptance? Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Jul;44(14):3708-3713. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1866684. Epub 2020 Dec 30.
- Background: PubMed 18295618Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Mar;89(3):422-9. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.005.
- Background: PubMed 33274665McDonald CL, Westcott-McCoy S, Weaver MR, Haagsma J, Kartin D. Global prevalence of traumatic non-fatal limb amputation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2021 Apr 1;45(2):105-114. doi: 10.1177/0309364620972258.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Amputees
Enrolling by invitation
Early Rehabilitation After Transfemoral Amputation in Moderately Active Patients Using the Avior Knee
Transfemoral Amputees
Recruiting
Bio Leg: Advancing Mobility (BAM)
Amputation of Lower Limb Above Knee, Amputee
Active, not recruiting
Functional and Neuroprotective Effects of Restoring Lower Limb Sensation After Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Lower Extremity Amputee, Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy
Recruiting
Effect of Neuro20 Functional Electrical Stimulation Suit on Autonomic Function, Muscle Performance, and Gait
Spinal Cord Injury, Stroke
Active, not recruitingEarly Phase 1
Feasibility Study Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Magnetic Bead Tracking System When Used With a Bionic External Prosthesis
Transtibial Amputee, Transtibial Amputation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Pressure and vibrotactile feedbak, Pressure feedback and Vibrotactile feedback in people with Amputees, run by University of Pisa at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Feb 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Valentina Azzollini, MD (+39 050996734, valentina.azzollini@unipi.it), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Embodiment (time frame: Day 1: Timepoint(T) - 0 "Baseline, pre-procedure"; T - 1 "immediately after the first aptic feedback tested"; T - 2 "immediately after the second aptic feedback tested"; T - 3 "immediately after the third aptic feddback tested".). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07418645, which also lists 12 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Feb 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 30 Oct 2026.