Intelligent Control Technologies for Smart Prosthetic and Orthotic Devices: A Systematic Review

Smart prosthetic and orthotic systems are evolving from isolated assistive devices into closed-loop human–machine systems that integrate biological sensing, intelligent intent decoding, adaptive actuation, and sensory feedback. This systematic review brings together evidence from 70 sources on recent advances in intelligent prosthetic and orthotic systems. The reviewed approaches include the following: surface and high-density electromyography, peripheral neural interfaces, multimodal sensing, artificial intelligence, adaptive and reinforcement-learning-based control, sensory restoration, digital twins, cybersecurity, and clinical translation. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Records were retrieved from Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Web of Science and screened using predefined eligibility and scope criteria. Of the 312 records identified, 48 duplicates were removed, leaving 264 records for screening. Following the screening process, 115 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 70 sources were ultimately included in the qualitative synthesis.
Collectively, the findings indicate that, the evidence points to a gradual shift from conventional, fixed myoelectric control toward more adaptive and multimodal control architectures. Approaches such as targeted muscle reinnervation, regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces, implanted electrodes, and bidirectional neural interfaces may improve signal specificity and expand the number of controllable degrees of freedom.
However, high decoding accuracy achieved under controlled laboratory conditions does not necessarily translate into meaningful clinical benefits. Important factors, including signal drift, the need for repeated recalibration, response latency, long-term stability, usability, cost, and performance during real-world activities, remain inconsistently evaluated across studies.
Based on these findings, the review proposes an end-to-end framework that links biological and environmental sensing with signal conditioning, user-intent interpretation, adaptive actuation, sensory feedback, and progressing from laboratory research and prototype development through validation and clinical testing to regulatory approval, clinical implementation, and ultimately real-world use.
The review also the review identifies several key priorities for future research, including standardized benchmarking protocols, longitudinal multicenter validation, interpretable and uncertainty-aware artificial intelligence, durable neural and sensing interfaces, cybersecurity, and patient-centered outcome measures. Therefore, addressing these areas will be essential for moving intelligent prosthetic and orthotic technologies from promising experimental systems toward reliable, clinically deployable solutions.

prosthetics and orthotics, myoelectric control, surface electromyography, neural interfaces, sensor fusion, artificial intelligence, reinforcement learning

1. F. Barberi, E. Anselmino, A. Mazzoni, M. Goldfarb, and S. Micera, “Toward the development of user-centered neurointegrated lower limb prostheses,” *IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng.*, vol. 17, pp. 212–228, 2024, doi: 10.1109/RBME.2023.3309328. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. A. Caldas, D. Matos, A. de Eyto, and N. Martins, “Redefining prosthetic needs: Insights from individuals with upper limb loss—A systematic review,” *Sensors*, vol. 26, no. 2, Art. no. 734, 2026, doi: 10.3390/s26020734. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. S. Salminger et al., “Current rates of prosthetic usage in upper-limb amputees—have innovations had an impact on device acceptance?” *Disabil. Rehabil.*, vol. 44, no. 14, pp. 3708–3713, 2022, doi: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1866684. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. J. Olsen, S. Day, S. Dupan, K. Nazarpour, and M. Dyson, “3D-printing and upper-limb prosthetic sockets: Promises and pitfalls,” *IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.*, vol. 29, pp. 527–535, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3057984. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. H. Yang et al., “A lightweight prosthetic hand with 19-DOF dexterity and human-level functions,” *Nat. Commun.*, vol. 16, Art. no. 955, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-56352-5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. X. Zhai, B. Jelfs, R. H. M. Chan, and C. Tin, “Self-recalibrating surface EMG pattern recognition for neuroprosthesis control based on convolutional neural network,” *Front. Neurosci.*, vol. 11, Art. no. 379, 2017, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00379. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. C. Cimolato, J. J. M. Driessen, L. S. Mattos, E. De Momi, M. Laffranchi, and L. De Michieli, “EMG-driven control in lower limb prostheses: A topic-based systematic review,” *J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.*, vol. 19, art. no. 43, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01019-1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. L. J. Hargrove, L. A. Miller, K. Turner, and T. A. Kuiken, “Myoelectric pattern recognition outperforms direct control for transhumeral amputees with targeted muscle reinnervation: A randomized clinical trial,” *Sci. Rep.*, vol. 7, Art. no. 13840, 2017, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14386-w. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. B. Abdikenov et al., “Emerging frontiers in robotic upper-limb prostheses: Mechanisms, materials, tactile sensors and machine learning-based EMG control: A comprehensive review,” *Sensors*, vol. 25, no. 13, Art. no. 3892, 2025, doi: 10.3390/s25133892. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. R. B. Woodward, A. M. Simon, E. A. Seyforth, and L. J. Hargrove, “Real-time adaptation of an artificial neural network for transfemoral amputees using a powered prosthesis,” *IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.*, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 1202–1211, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TBME.2021.3120616. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. M. Tschiedel, M. F. Russold, and E. Kaniusas, “Relying on more sense for enhancing lower limb prostheses control: A review,” *J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.*, vol. 17, Art. no. 99, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12984-020-00726-x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. R. Baud, A. R. Manzoori, A. Ijspeert, and M. Bouri, “Review of control strategies for lower-limb exoskeletons to assist gait,” *J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.*, vol. 18, Art. no. 119, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00906-3. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. B. Shi et al., “Wearable ankle robots in post-stroke rehabilitation of gait: A systematic review,” *Front. Neurorobot.*, vol. 13, Art. no. 63, 2019, doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2019.00063. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. R. Wu, Z. Yao, J. Si, and H. Huang, “Robotic knee tracking control to mimic the intact human knee profile based on actor-critic reinforcement learning,” *IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica*, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19–30, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1109/JAS.2021.1004272. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. M. Gonzalez, A. Bismuth, C. Lee, C. A. Chestek, and D. H. Gates, “Artificial referred sensation in upper and lower limb prosthesis users: A systematic review,” *J. Neural Eng.*, vol. 19, no. 5, Art. no. 10, 2022, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/ac8c38. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. R. Gehlhar, M. Tucker, A. J. Young, and A. D. Ames, “A review of current state-of-the-art control methods for lower-limb powered prostheses,” *Annu. Rev. Control*, vol. 55, pp. 142–164, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2023.03.003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. A. Middleton and M. Ortiz-Catalan, “Neuromusculoskeletal arm prostheses: Personal and social implications of living with an intimately integrated bionic arm,” *Front. Neurorobot.*, vol. 14, Art. no. 39, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2020.00039. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. M. Yuan et al., “Targeted muscle reinnervation and regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces versus standard management in the treatment of limb amputation: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” *Plast. Surg.*, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 253–264, 2024, doi: 10.1177/22925503221107462. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. D. Hofmann, N. Jiang, I. Vujaklija, and D. Farina, “Bayesian filtering of surface EMG for accurate simultaneous and proportional prosthetic control,” *IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.*, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1333–1341, 2016, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2015.2501979. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. J. A. Spanias, A. M. Simon, S. B. Finucane, E. J. Perreault, and L. J. Hargrove, “Online adaptive neural control of a robotic lower limb prosthesis,” *J. Neural Eng.*, vol. 15, no. 1, Art. no. 016015, 2018, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aa92a8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. N. Sun et al., “Continuous estimation of human knee joint angles by fusing kinematic and myoelectric signals,” *IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.*, vol. 30, pp. 2446–2455, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2022.3200485. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. S. M. Engdahl, S. A. Acuña, E. L. King, A. Bashatah, and S. Sikdar, “First demonstration of functional task performance using a sonomyographic prosthesis: A case study,” *Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.*, vol. 10, Art. no. 876836, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.876836. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. O. Fukuda, D. Sakaguchi, Y. He, N. Yamaguchi, and H. Okumura, “Bimodal control of a vision-based myoelectric hand,” *IEEE Access*, vol. 9, pp. 98369–98380, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3096040. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. H. c, S. Eldawlatly, J. M. Cardona Audí, R. Ruff, and K.-P. Hoffmann, “A multi-Kalman filter-based approach for decoding arm kinematics from EMG recordings,” *BioMed. Eng. OnLine*, vol. 21, Art. no. 60, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12938-022-01030-6. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. D. Yadav and K. Veer, “Recent trends and challenges of surface electromyography in prosthetic applications,” *Biomed. Eng. Lett.*, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 353–373, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s13534-023-00281-z. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. M. Atzori, M. Cognolato, and H. Müller, “Deep learning with convolutional neural networks applied to electromyography data: A resource for the classification of movements for prosthetic hands,” *Front. Neurorobot.*, vol. 10, Art. no. 9, 2016, doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2016.00009. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. A. E. Olsson, P. Sager, E. Andersson, A. Björkman, N. Malešević, and C. Antfolk, “Extraction of multi-labelled movement information from the raw HD-sEMG image with time-domain depth,” *Sci. Rep.*, vol. 9, Art. no. 7244, 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-43676-8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. J. Zbinden, J. Molin, and M. Ortiz-Catalan, “Deep learning for enhanced prosthetic control: Real-time motor intent decoding for simultaneous control of artificial limbs,” *IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.*, vol. 32, pp. 1177–1186, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2024.3371896. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. S. Jiang, P. Kang, X. Song, B. P. L. Lo, and P. B. Shull, “Emerging wearable interfaces and algorithms for hand gesture recognition: A survey,” *IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng.*, vol. 15, pp. 85–102, 2022, doi: 10.1109/RBME.2021.3078190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. T. Hoshino, S. Kanoga, M. Tsubaki, and A. Aoyama, “Comparing subject-to-subject transfer learning methods in surface electromyogram-based motion recognition with shallow and deep classifiers,” *Neurocomputing*, vol. 489, pp. 599–612, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.12.081. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. S. Luo, G. Androwis, S. Adamovich, H. Su, E. Nunez, and X. Zhou, “Reinforcement learning and control of a lower extremity exoskeleton for squat assistance,” *Front. Robot. AI*, vol. 8, Art. no. 702845, 2021, doi: 10.3389/frobt.2021.702845. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. L. de Vree and R. Carloni, “Deep reinforcement learning for physics-based musculoskeletal simulations of healthy subjects and transfemoral prostheses’ users during normal walking,” *IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.*, vol. 29, pp. 607–618, 2021, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3063015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. M. Zandigohar et al., “Multimodal fusion of EMG and vision for human grasp intent inference in prosthetic hand control,” *Front. Robot. AI*, vol. 11, Art. no. 1312554, 2024, doi: 10.3389/frobt.2024.1312554. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. L. Meng, J. Pang, Z. Wang, R. Xu, and D. Ming, “The role of surface electromyography in data fusion with inertial sensors to enhance locomotion recognition and prediction,” *Sensors*, vol. 21, no. 18, Art. no. 6291, 2021, doi: 10.3390/s21186291. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. T. J. M. Dick, A. A. Biewener, and J. M. Wakeling, “Comparison of human gastrocnemius forces predicted by Hill-type muscle models and estimated from ultrasound images,” *J. Exp. Biol.*, vol. 220, no. 9, pp. 1643–1653, 2017, doi: 10.1242/jeb.154807. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. B.-Y. Su, J. Wang, S.-Q. Liu, M. Sheng, J. Jiang, and K. Xiang, “A CNN-based method for intent recognition using inertial measurement units and intelligent lower limb prosthesis,” *IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.*, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1032–1042, May 2019, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2019.2909585. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. J. Huang, X. Li, J. Wei, C. M. Niu, and G. Li, “Performance of two different targeted muscle reinnervation approaches for improving myoelectric prosthetic control,” *IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.*, vol. 33, pp. 1392–1399, 2025, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2025.3558292. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. A. G. Chappell, M. D. Ramsey, S. Park, G. A. Dumanian, and J. H. Ko, “Targeted muscle reinnervation—an up-to-date review: Evidence, indications, and technique,” *Arch. Plast. Surg.*, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 153–168, 2025, doi: 10.1055/a-2521-2199. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. G. A. Dumanian et al., “Targeted muscle reinnervation treats neuroma and phantom pain in major limb amputees: A randomized clinical trial,” *Ann. Surg.*, vol. 270, no. 2, pp. 238–246, 2019, doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003088. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. A. Vaskov et al., “A robust neuromuscular interface to restore lost function in people with amputations,” *Research Square*, preprint, 2025, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5989030/v1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. P. P. Vu et al., “A regenerative peripheral nerve interface allows real-time control of an artificial hand in upper limb amputees,” *Sci. Transl. Med.*, vol. 12, no. 533, 2020, doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay2857. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. J. Zbinden et al., “Improved control of a prosthetic limb by surgically creating electro-neuromuscular constructs with implanted electrodes,” *Sci. Transl. Med.*, vol. 15, no. 704, Art. no. eabq3665, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abq3665. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. P. P. Vu et al., “Long-term upper-extremity prosthetic control using regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces and implanted EMG electrodes,” *J. Neural Eng.*, vol. 20, Art. no. 026039, 2023, doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/accb0c. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. I. Valerio, S. A. Schulz, J. West, R. F. Westenberg, and K. R. Eberlin, “Hand/peripheral nerve targeted muscle reinnervation combined with a vascularized pedicled regenerative peripheral nerve interface,” *Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open*, vol. 8, Art. no. e2689, 2020, doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002689. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. M. Wand, M. B. Kristoffersen, A. W. Franzke, and J. Schmidhuber, “Analysis of neural network based proportional myoelectric hand prosthesis control,” *IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.*, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 2283–2293, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TBME.2022.3141308. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. S. S. Srinivasan et al., “Agonist-antagonist myoneural interface amputation preserves proprioceptive sensorimotor neurophysiology in lower limbs,” *Sci. Transl. Med.*, vol. 12, no. 573, 2020, doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abc5926. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. F. M. Petrini et al., “Enhancing functional abilities and cognitive integration of the lower limb prosthesis,” *Sci. Transl. Med.*, vol. 11, no. 512, Art. no. eaav8939, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav8939. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. D. M. Page et al., “Discriminability of multiple cutaneous and proprioceptive hand percepts evoked by intraneural stimulation with Utah slanted electrode arrays in human amputees,” *J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.*, vol. 18, Art. no. 12, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12984-021-00808-4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. J. W. Sensinger and S. Dosen, “A review of sensory feedback in upper-limb prostheses from the perspective of human motor control,” *Front. Neurosci.*, vol. 14, Art. no. 345, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00345. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. U. Wijk, I. K. Carlsson, C. Antfolk, A. Björkman, and B. Rosén, “Sensory feedback in hand prostheses: A prospective study of everyday use,” *Front. Neurosci.*, vol. 14, Art. no. 663, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00663. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. M. A. Wilke, C. Niethammer, B. Meyer, D. Farina, and S. Dosen, “Psychometric characterization of incidental feedback sources during grasping with a hand prosthesis,” *J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.*, vol. 16, Art. no. 155, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s12984-019-0622-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. G. Valle et al., “Biomimetic intraneural sensory feedback enhances sensation naturalness, tactile sensitivity, and manual dexterity in a bidirectional prosthesis,” *Neuron*, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 37–45.e7, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.08.033. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. S. Manz et al., “A review of user needs to drive the development of lower limb prostheses,” *J. Neuroeng. Rehabil.*, vol. 19, Art. no. 119, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s12984-022-01097-1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. A. C. Nanivadekar et al., “Closed-loop stimulation of lateral cervical spinal cord in upper-limb amputees to enable sensory discrimination: A case study,” *Sci. Rep.*, vol. 12, Art. no. 17002, 2022, doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-21264-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. E. Leogrande et al., “Electronic skin technologies: From hardware building blocks and tactile sensing to control algorithms and applications,” *Sens. Actuators Rep.*, vol. 9, Art. no. 100312, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.snr.2025.100312. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. A. Aravindkumar, M. Ramadoss, S. A. F. Ahmed, V. Sampath, and K. Lakshminarayanan, “Explainable AI in healthcare: A systematic review of XAI use cases in imaging, diagnostics, and rehabilitation,” *Front. Artif. Intell.*, vol. 9, Art. no. 1749527, 2026, doi: 10.3389/frai.2026.1749527. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. R. Zheng, Z. Yu, H. Liu, Z. Zhao, J. Chen, and L. Jia, “Sensitivity adaptation of lower-limb exoskeleton for human performance augmentation based on deep reinforcement learning,” *IEEE Access*, vol. 11, pp. 36029–36040, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3265895. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. M. Montazerin, E. Rahimian, F. Naderkhani, S. F. Atashzar, S. Yanushkevich, and A. Mohammadi, “Transformer-based hand gesture recognition from instantaneous to fused neural decomposition of high-density EMG signals,” *Sci. Rep.*, vol. 13, Art. no. 11000, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36490-w. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. C. K. Liu and D. Negrut, “The role of physics-based simulators in robotics,” *Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst.*, vol. 4, pp. 295–318, 2021, doi: 10.1146/annurev-control-072720-022402. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. M. A.-M. Khan et al., “A systematic review on reinforcement learning-based robotics within the last decade,” *IEEE Access*, vol. 8, pp. 206553–206584, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3027152. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. K. Maksymenko, A. K. Clarke, I. Mendez Guerra, S. Deslauriers-Gauthier, and D. Farina, “A myoelectric digital twin for fast and realistic modelling in deep learning,” *Nat. Commun.*, vol. 14, Art. no. 1600, 2023, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37238-w. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. V. Weistroffer, F. Keith, A. Bisiaux, C. Andriot, and A. Lasnier, “Using physics-based digital twins and extended reality for the safety and ergonomics evaluation of cobotic workstations,” *Front. Virtual Real.*, vol. 3, Art. no. 781830, 2022, doi: 10.3389/frvir.2022.781830. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. F. Paggetti, M. Gherardini, Y. Tian, P. S. Cederna, S. W. P. Kemp, and C. Cipriani, “Sensing muscle deformation for upper-limb prosthetic control: A narrative review,” *IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng.*, vol. 34, pp. 3374–3389, 2026, doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2026.3710283. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. N. Parajuli et al., “Real-time EMG based pattern recognition control for hand prostheses: A review on existing methods, challenges and future implementation,” *Sensors*, vol. 19, no. 20, Art. no. 4596, 2019, doi: 10.3390/s19204596. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. D. Koutras, G. Stergiopoulos, T. Dasaklis, P. Kotzanikolaou, D. Glynos, and C. Douligeris, “Security in IoMT communications: A survey,” *Sensors*, vol. 20, no. 17, Art. no. 4828, 2020, doi: 10.3390/s20174828. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. M. Anwar et al., “BBAD: Blockchain-backed assault detection for cyber physical systems,” *IEEE Access*, vol. 12, pp. 101878–101894, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3404656. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. J. M. Tan, G. R. J. Halford, M. Lukin, and F. Kohler, “Recommendations from the ISPO lower-limb COMPASS: Patient-reported and performance-based outcome measures,” *Prosthet. Orthot. Int.*, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 13–25, 2023, doi: 10.1097/PXR.0000000000000197. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. N. Kerver, E. Karssies, P. F. M. Krabbe, C. K. van der Sluis, and H. Groen, “Economic evaluation of upper limb prostheses in the Netherlands including the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip versus standard myoelectric hand prostheses,” *Disabil. Rehabil.*, vol. 45, no. 25, pp. 4311–4321, 2023, doi: 10.1080/09638288.2022.2151653. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. J. S. Schofield, C. E. Shell, D. T. Beckler, Z. C. Thumser, and P. D. Marasco, “Long-term home-use of sensory-motor-integrated bidirectional bionic prosthetic arms promotes functional, perceptual, and cognitive changes,” *Front. Neurosci.*, vol. 14, Art. no. 120, 2020, doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00120. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. A. G. Fraser et al., “Artificial intelligence in medical device software and high-risk medical devices—A review of definitions, expert recommendations and regulatory initiatives,” *Expert Rev. Med. Devices*, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 467–491, 2023, doi: 10.1080/17434440.2023.2184685. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• A Study to Assess the Impact of a Nurse-Led Educational Intervention on Knowledge Regarding Oral Health Among Primigravida in Selected Hospitals of Navi Mumbai
• Attitude towards Mathematics and Science in Relation to STEM Career Aspirations among Senior Secondary School Students
• AI-Driven Personalized Learning in Educational Systems: A Framework for Adaptive Learning and Decision Support
• Institutionalizing Indigenous Peoples Education in Philippine Basic Education: Development of the Integrated Institutionalization Framework for Indigenous Peoples Education (IIF-IPEd)
• Toward an Integrated Theory of Enterprise Risk Management: A Multi-Theoretical Conceptual Framework