Sobochak’s basic premise is that academic theory has in many ways used the notion of the prothesis as a comfy metaphor to talk about the extended breadth of human control or interaction with the world: be it photography, or cars , or the internet. As an amputee he can’t just take this lying down. He persistently declares that the metaphor is empty and incorrectly formed by armchair academics not concerned with the real meaning of a prothesis for a disabled person.
Assumably the main point is that prothesis are not sensual extensions but replacement numb stumps that serve a functional return to normal appearance and mobility. None of these flashy new technologies are a replacement for a loss but arguably like adding a fourth or fifth redundant prothetic leg on. Certainly these technologies are sensual and textural in ways.
A successful prosthesis is one that is ‘invisible” in the daily life of the user. There continues talk about the ins and outs of prosthesis types and costs and touch upon the famous runner amputee athlete Amiee Mullins. Not much more to be gleans about technology and interface other than fleeting glimpses of prosthesis improving upon humans towards ends of fastest running times, but Amieee can’t even standup in her running legs, As usual there is a trade off for embracing technological advantages.