NIOP Phase III - Produce Footage for NIOP Video Series, Q-C Adapters & Continued NIOP R&D

Hi all,

I’ve voted abstain for now

I explained my Abstention to Nate today, and we agreed that I would share my concerns here, and also extend the poll's closing until Friday.  This should allow time for discussion, and if the discussion warrants it, give Nate a chance to revise the proposal to win more of us over.  (I hope to be one of those!)

TLDR:  Nate is not asking for a lot of money here, but he's promising to do too many things.  To validate our past investment and justify future investments, we need a demonstrably functional and buildable NIOP arm with articulated hand.  That's  what we should fund.  Committing to more than that will reduce our chances of getting the one thing we really need right now. 

Here's how I see it. Thanks to Nate's fine work to date, the NIOP project is potentially transformative, both for e-NABLE and for the prosthetic community in general.  The promise of an open-source, modular cosmetic, 3D-printable arm system is immense.  

But the project is risky, too.  The e-NABLE community has invested a (for us)  significant amount of money in the project so far, and while the design and documentation are stupendous, the functionality of the system is still unclear.  

Can a user of the NIOP system wear it comfortably and use it to adequately accomplish basic manual tasks?  We don't know yet.  Until we do know, I don't think we should fund work on a Bionic NIOP system, nor on lower limb systems, nor on pool cue adapters and the like.  Rather, we should make sure Nate is able to focus on using feedback from actual "test-pilots" to refine the NIOP design and documentation to demonstrate a basic system--with an articulated hand--that is useful to users, and buildable by mortals. 

I hope and believe this can be done, but only if it is Indispensable Nate's Number One Priority.  If we learn that it can't be done, I'll probably argue that the next phase of NIOP development should be the last phase of NIOP development, even as I will remain in awe of the NIOP achievement and proud that we gave it a go!

So I think Nate should simplify and focus the proposal.  

Remove Item 3 (which deals with vaguely-defined bionic and leg devices).  Instead, work with one or two test pilots using a NIOP-with-articulated-hand for real manual activity.  (Nate might be one of those test pilots!). 

I'd also be happy to see Nate remove the commitments to the various Sports and Rec Adapters.  If the Q-C is as versatile and good as we hope, others can do that work.  

I'm confident that Nate can make this work, but if a good faith effort shows that it can't, we'll have learned what we need to learn. 

• I agree completely with Jon's comments, and after much reflection I have decided to disagree with the proposal. Here are my reasons.

• First of all, I completely agree with the expenditure of $2500 for the films. Therefore, I encourage Nate to write a separate proposal for just this filming portion.

• I believe the community does not need task specific adaptors and terminal devices for the NIOP system right now. The NIOP system is in it's infancy, and additional moving parts only adds to the complexity.

• By far, the most important terminal device is a fully articulated hand that is robust. The vast majority of EWC cases, and help desk requests are for fully articulated hands.

• The Kwawu hand, while anthropomorphically beautiful, simply is not functional as a robust device. I have personal experience, having printed and fabricated about 10 Kwawu hands, 3 Kwawu arms and 3 full NIOP trans-humeral systems with Kwawu hands. Of these, 3 were for actual donation. Feedback from my recipients indicated the Kwawu hands were totally unusable. There were other issues with the NIOP system, but these will most likely be resolved as more experience and potential modifications to existing components are made.

• Therefore, placing priority on the development of niche task-specific devices instead of the development of a robust fully articulated hand for NIOP is simply the wrong priority.

• Bionic systems and leg prostheses are meaningless at this point when we don't have a fully acceptable and robust NIOP system that is proven. The dissemination and adoption of standard NIOP needs to be accomplished before further innovation is funded.

While I agree this proposal should be more focused. I disagree with many of your reasons.
No one device will fit every function. Prosthetics should be viewed like shoes. I have ten different shoes in my closet, and they perform ten different functions; running shoes, hiking boots, dress shoes.
The Kwawu hand is about as functional as any manually operated general purpose device. There is indeed a real need for a system of different terminal devices for different functions. I like the idea of a quick release wrist. I have been unable to design a quick release that is anywhere as close to as easy to build as the Kwawu hand. So far, I have found it just as easy to make a whole arm each with a different device on the end.
So, while i think the current proposal should be about documenting the current system. A second proposal with ten different niche terminal devices is a great idea.

I agree with Jon's and Bob's comments. The work being done is excellent but I would like to see some quantification of the benefits/functionality of the devices as part of any device funding proposals. All the devices we make are good for psychosocial benefits but tend to fall short for functionality. I've printed kwawu hands and arms and a couple NIOP devices and they perform about the same as all other eNable devices in testing, which is not great.

While bionic limbs are also exciting and of interest to engineering students worldwide, everyone works from scratch to get a final product that doesn't actually work in practice. I don't think bionics are the way to go for the moment. Legs are even more taboo imo. Too much expertise in fitting and load bearing for an eNable leg to warrant general adoption by us hobbyists.

I do think that the video series, however, is super valuable so lots of enablers can start printing, assembling and (most critical imo) testing them to brainstorm improvements.

I'd suggest a focus on the instructional resources is warranted and key before moving onto task specific devices, bionic expansions or legs.

I agree with Eric: Videos first, functional exploration second, extensions third. Grantwriting in parallel.

@ebubar you and @Bob Rieger seem to disagree on the functional competitiveness of the Kwawu. Have you guys compared notes with each other? With @Jacquin Buchanan ?

I’m not sure what Eric’s opinion is.....I consider the Kwawu to be functionally useless. I did have one conversation with Jaq. He indicated he did not have the time to work on it further, and he graciously sent me the Fusion 360 files. Alas, I am not proficient with 3D modeling.