Table 1. Coding structure.

Left column indicates category, middle column indicates sub-category, and right column describes the content coded within each sub-category. White rows were included in the model; grey rows were not.

	Sub-categories	Description
Return to Normalcy	Naturalness of experience	Statements about the naturalness of the participant’s experiences (or lack of naturalness), including sensation being comparable to the intact hand, and the sensory experience being integrated into their daily routines and decision making processes
	Embodiment	Comments indicating the presence (or absence) of self-attribution or ownership of the prosthesis, how the system affected participants’ perceptions of wholeness, and that the experience of the hand remained after stimulation was off
	Interaction with others	Comments about being able to do “normal” social activities: enjoying and trying to shake hands, playing with and picking up children
	Acclimation	Comments suggesting that participants were becoming more comfortable with having sensation, acclimating to the artificial sensation, learning to recognize and use sensory information, or suggesting a process of the sensory experience becoming more natural
	Reduced focus and attention	Comments about the degree of focus or attention required to complete tasks, or using the prosthesis more spontaneously with less thought
	Phantom position	Comments about the phantom sensation, including position of the phantom limb, changes in phantom position, or telescoping experience
Self-Efficacy	Confidence in tasks	Comments about participants’ confidence in their abilities and using the prosthesis to do tasks
	Usefulness of sensory information	Comments about how participants utilized the sensory information provided by the stimulation to do specific tasks
	Lack of confidence/ Distrust of the system	Statements in which participants expressed worry, uneasiness, concern, annoyance, or frustration with certain aspects of the system
	Control interference	Statements about inadvertent movement of the prosthesis or an inability to move, either due to stimulation interfering with myoelectric control or due to perceived stimulation interference
Sensation Experience	Sensation modality	Comments about the type, texture, or modality of the sensations provided by stimulation
	Sensation location	Comments regarding the locations of the sensations provided by stimulation
	Sensation timing	Comments about the perceived timing of the sensory percepts
	Sensation intensity	Comments about the intensity or magnitude of the sensations created by the stimulation
User Attitudes	Outcome acceptance	Statements about the participants’ desire to have the experience of a sensorized prosthesis rather than having no sensation, general statements about participants’ attitudes about the sensation or system, and statements about how sensation impacted their willingness to wear the system or their wear-time
Stability of Sensation	Changes in intensity	Comments about how intensity changed throughout the day or the study
	Changes in modality	Comments about the way in which the modality changed throughout the day or the study
	Changes in location	Comments regarding changes in locations of sensory percepts throughout the day or the study
	Changes related to arm position	Comments about how the sensation changed when the arm was in different positions
	Consistency of sensation	Comments about the general stability of the sensation, or that the sensation felt inconsistent or erratic
System Operations	Mechanical hand interactions	Comments about the physical properties and characteristics of the prosthetic hand and silicone sensors
	Stimulator program	Comments about the stimulation software program. These comments could refer to unexpected shutdowns or reboots of the stimulator, triggering of sensations when inappropriate, features of the program that the participants would like to see added or removed in future versions, or other issues that were caused by the stimulator program
	Connectors and cables	Comments about the ease of use, problems, or experiences referring to the cables and connectors in the system. Comments include issues related to cable snagging or tethering, connectors being pulled apart accidentally, and the experiences of the participants connecting and disconnecting the cables and connectors. Comments also include getting used to system donning and doffing procedures involving the cables and connectors
	Changing stimulation parameters	Comments about the experience of changing stimulation parameters, such as the pulse width and pulse amplitude. Comments about the frequency of changing parameters, ease of changing parameters, and rationale for changing parameters