Section 149 of 440
FAMILY 26: ASSISTIVE & RESTORATIVE TECHNOLOGY
Superdomain: Technology & Augmentation. This family contains eight stable Power records.
PWR-201 · Augmentative and alternative communication
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. AAC is a legitimate communication capability of the person-with-system-and-partners, not an inferior substitute for speech.
Definition. Capability to develop or express augmentative and alternative communication in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. AAC is a legitimate communication capability of the person-with-system-and-partners, not an inferior substitute for speech.
Measurement boundary. Independently authored meaning, partner comprehension, communication turns, participation and breakdown repair across settings. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A speech device speaks for a person automatically
Metric. Independently authored meaning, partner comprehension, communication turns, participation and breakdown repair across settings
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
No one device fits every user, and messages produced through discredited facilitator-dependent methods must not be assumed to be the person's authorship.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A speech device speaks for a person automatically
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [3] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [14] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context; [15] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-202 · Sensory substitution
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Sensory-substitution mappings can be learned, but they do not restore biological vision or replace established mobility tools.
Definition. Capability to develop or express sensory substitution in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Sensory-substitution mappings can be learned, but they do not restore biological vision or replace established mobility tools.
Measurement boundary. Task accuracy, collision type, speed, cognitive load and chosen use versus the person's established mobility route. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A wearable gives blind people vision
Metric. Task accuracy, collision type, speed, cognitive load and chosen use versus the person's established mobility route
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Device-only travel was slower with more collisions in one pilot, low steps were detected poorly, and another glove remained slower than the cane.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A wearable gives blind people vision
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [9] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [12] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [13] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [15] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-203 · Prosthetic control
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Prosthetic control can be learned and sustained within a fitted person-device system; benefit and risk vary by interface and user.
Definition. Capability to develop or express prosthetic control in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Prosthetic control can be learned and sustained within a fitted person-device system; benefit and risk vary by interface and user.
Measurement boundary. Task success, control error, comfort, wear time, abandonment, maintenance and device-on/off daily participation. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A bionic arm becomes a perfect natural limb
Metric. Task success, control error, comfort, wear time, abandonment, maintenance and device-on/off daily participation
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
One pilot kinematic measure did not improve, and a corrected implanted case series included sepsis and infection requiring explantation.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A bionic arm becomes a perfect natural limb
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [1] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [5] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [15] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-204 · Exoskeleton-assisted mobility
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Exoskeleton-assisted mobility is a supervised configured capability with mixed evidence for added rehabilitation benefit.
Definition. Capability to develop or express exoskeleton-assisted mobility in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Exoskeleton-assisted mobility is a supervised configured capability with mixed evidence for added rehabilitation benefit.
Measurement boundary. Device-on mobility, assistance level, falls, fatigue and personally relevant independence plus delayed device-off walking outcomes. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A robotic suit makes paralysis disappear
Metric. Device-on mobility, assistance level, falls, fatigue and personally relevant independence plus delayed device-off walking outcomes
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
A multicentre 2026 trial found no significant advantage over standard rehabilitation on any outcome, and a 2023 trial had null results beyond WISCI-II.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A robotic suit makes paralysis disappear
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [8] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [10] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [15] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-205 · Neurofeedback
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Neurofeedback may teach control of a specified signal, but broad cognitive, emotional or clinical enhancement is not established.
Definition. Capability to develop or express neurofeedback in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Neurofeedback may teach control of a specified signal, but broad cognitive, emotional or clinical enhancement is not established.
Measurement boundary. Prespecified signal change, sham difference, responder rate, no-feedback transfer and independent functional outcome. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. Training brainwaves upgrades the brain
Metric. Prespecified signal change, sham difference, responder rate, no-feedback transfer and independent functional outcome
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Insomnia outcomes did not outperform sham despite target-signal learning, contradicting the master baseline's implication of uniformly strong coverage.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
Training brainwaves upgrades the brain
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [4] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [7] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [15] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-206 · Wearable navigation
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Wearable navigation aids can add cues in controlled settings; they are adjuncts until real-world safety and reliability are demonstrated.
Definition. Capability to develop or express wearable navigation in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Wearable navigation aids can add cues in controlled settings; they are adjuncts until real-world safety and reliability are demonstrated.
Measurement boundary. Collision type, drop-off/head obstacle detection, speed, auditory masking, workload, failure recovery and user-chosen adoption. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A smart wearable guarantees independent navigation
Metric. Collision type, drop-off/head obstacle detection, speed, auditory masking, workload, failure recovery and user-chosen adoption
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Low steps were poorly detected, device-only travel produced more collisions in one pilot, and glove travel was slower than cane use.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A smart wearable guarantees independent navigation
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [9] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [12] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [13] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [15] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-207 · Environmental control systems
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Environmental controls can increase autonomy for selected users when fitted, maintained and backed up as a complete service.
Definition. Capability to develop or express environmental control systems in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Environmental controls can increase autonomy for selected users when fitted, maintained and backed up as a complete service.
Measurement boundary. Correct and false commands, time, assistance avoided, user control, failure recovery, maintenance and home participation. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A smart home creates total independence
Metric. Correct and false commands, time, assistance avoided, user control, failure recovery, maintenance and home participation
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
A smart-home study recorded false operations, and wellbeing evidence remains a small uncontrolled pilot.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A smart home creates total independence
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [2] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [3] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [6] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [15] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority; a restricted safety or legitimacy boundary.
PWR-208 · Remote telepresence and embodiment
Evidence route: Externally gated evidence dossier. Use the linked canonical tutorial for current teaching, accessibility, safety and editorial-review status; this evidence dossier does not enlarge that tutorial’s authority.
Summary. Telepresence can support connection and participation in some configured services; it does not reproduce full physical presence.
Definition. Capability to develop or express remote telepresence and embodiment in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports. Telepresence can support connection and participation in some configured services; it does not reproduce full physical presence.
Measurement boundary. User-controlled participation, connection, communication, access barriers, privacy incidents, technical failure and chosen continued use. This measures the declared configured system and cannot by itself establish broad transfer, unaided ability, safety or legitimacy.
Myth. A robot lets anyone be anywhere as if physically present
Metric. User-controlled participation, connection, communication, access barriers, privacy incidents, technical failure and chosen continued use
Boundary. Report person, device/model/interface, task, assistance, failure state and comparator; the metric is not proof of unaided general capability.
Negative and limiting findings.
Implementation was constrained by stakeholder misunderstanding and individual fit, and the evidence did not test objective learning or broad embodiment.
No cited evidence supports perfect, universal or consequence-free performance.
Claims this evidence cannot support.
A robot lets anyone be anywhere as if physically present
The tool or robot's output proves an unaided, universal or permanent human superpower
A successful laboratory task proves independent real-world or clinical capability
Evidence references. [11] primary empirical support; limiting or contrary evidence; [15] limiting or contrary evidence; official boundary context.
Next gate. External confirmation is required before higher-authority use because: a clinical, high-risk or regulated configuration; a supervision or non-attempt boundary; cultural, community-rights or affected-person authority.
Family source register
Numbers in each dossier refer to this family register. A source can support one bounded proposition while simultaneously limiting transfer, certainty, generalisation or safety.
[1] Max Ortiz-Catalan; Enzo Mastinu; Paolo Sassu; Oskar Aszmann; Rickard Brånemark (2020). Self-Contained Neuromusculoskeletal Arm Prostheses. Primary research. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1917537
[2] Graham Henderson; Hannah Harris; Michael John Dolan; Ruaraidh Hill (2026). How do environmental control systems affect mental health and psychological well-being? A pilot study. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42400500/
[3] Maria Borgestig; Isphana Al Khatib; Sandra Masayko; Helena Hemmingsson (2021). The Impact of Eye-gaze Controlled Computer on Communication and Functional Independence in Children and Young People with Complex Needs - A Multicenter Intervention Study. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33872136/
[4] Manuel Schabus; Hermann Griessenberger; Maria-Teresa Gnjezda; Dominik P. J. Heib; Malgorzata Wislowska; Kerstin Hoedlmoser (2017). Better than sham? A double-blind placebo-controlled neurofeedback study in primary insomnia. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28335000/
[5] Tuğba Aydin; Fatma Nur Kesiktaş; Yusuf Doğan Akbulut; Mustafa Çorum; Kadriye Öneş; Taha Kizilkurt; Nazli Derya Buğdayci; Ilhan Karacan (2022). The efficacy of robot-assisted training for patients with upper limb amputations who use myoelectric prostheses: a randomized controlled pilot study. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34775437/
[6] Rui Zhang; Shenghong He; Xinghua Yang; Xiaoyun Wang; Kai Li; Qiyun Huang; Zhuliang Yu; Xichun Zhang; Dan Tang; Yuanqing Li (2019). An EOG-Based Human-Machine Interface to Control a Smart Home Environment for Patients With Severe Spinal Cord Injuries. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29993413/
[7] Yoshihito Muraoka; Seitaro Iwama; Junichi Ushiba (2024). Neurofeedback-induced desynchronization of sensorimotor rhythm elicits pre-movement downregulation of intracortical inhibition that shortens simple reaction time in humans: A double-blind, sham-controlled randomized study. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40800510/
[8] Ángel Gil-Agudo; Álvaro Megía-García; José Luis Pons; Isabel Sinovas-Alonso; Natalia Comino-Suárez; Vicente Lozano-Berrio; Antonio J. Del-Ama (2023). Exoskeleton-based training improves walking independence in incomplete spinal cord injury patients: results from a randomized controlled trial. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36964574/
[9] A. Neugebauer; K. Rifai; M. Getzlaff; S. Wahl (2020). Navigation aid for blind persons by visual-to-auditory sensory substitution: a pilot study. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237344
[10] Corrado Zenesini; Ilaria Baroncini; Roberto Di Palma; Alessandra Bigioni; Pawel Kiper; Francesca Bettini; Laura Simoncini; Valeria Petrone; Ilaria Sermasi; Alice Portillo; Flora Morara; Paola Paglierani; Iolanda Pisotta; Giorgio Scivoletto; Giovanni Lazzaro; Martina Regazzetti; Elena Antelmi (2026). Clinical outcomes of rehabilitation with a robotic anthropomorphic exoskeleton in patients with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42266158/
[11] Thomasin Powell; Jennifer Cohen; Pandora Patterson (2021). Keeping Connected With School: Implementing Telepresence Robots to Improve the Wellbeing of Adolescent Cancer Patients. Primary research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34867634/
[12] M. Bleau; S. Paré; I. Djerourou; D. R. Chebat; R. Kupers; M. Ptito (2021). Blindness and the Reliability of Downwards Sensors to Avoid Obstacles: A Study with the EyeCane. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082700
[13] Jakob Kilian; Alexander Neugebauer; Lasse Scherffig; Siegfried Wahl (2022). The Unfolding Space Glove: A Wearable Spatio-Visual to Haptic Sensory Substitution Device for Blind People. Primary research. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22051859
[14] American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2026). Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). Official authority. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/professional-issues/augmentative-and-alternative-communication/
[15] World Health Organization; United Nations Children's Fund (2022). Global report on assistive technology. Official authority. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049451