ArticleExperimental brain research2018
Peg-manipulation capabilities of middle-aged adults have a greater influence on pegboard times than those of young and old adults.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Visual Performance in Fine Motor Skills.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Explaining the influence of practice on the grooved pegboard times of older adults: role of force steadiness.Experimental brain research · 2024Article
- Article
- Poor estimates of motor variability are associated with longer grooved pegboard times for middle-aged and older adults.Journal of neurophysiology · 2019Article
- Examining the Interactions Between Expectations and tDCS Effects on Motor and Cognitive Performance.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Declines in manual dexterity are frequently quantified as the time it takes to complete the grooved pegboard test. The test requires individuals to manipulate 25 pegs, one at a time, by removing them from a well and inserting them into a prescribed hole. The manipulation of each peg involves four phases: selection, transport, insertion, and return. The purpose of our study was to compare the times to complete the four phases of peg manipulation and the forces applied to the pegboard during peg insertion as young, middle-aged, and old adults performed the grooved pegboard test. The relative significance of the peg-manipulation attributes for 30 young (24.0 ± 4.4 years), 15 middle-aged (46.5 ± 6.5 years), and 15 old (70.4 ± 4.0 years) adults was assessed with a multiple-regression analysis. The grooved pegboard test was performed on a force plate. Pegboard times for the old adults (81 ± 17 s) were longer than those for young (56 ± 7 s) and middle-aged (58 ± 11 s) adults. Regression analysis indicated that the explanatory variables for the pegboard times of young (R
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.