Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31209510›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2019

Loss of haptic feedback impairs control of hand posture: a study in chronically deafferented individuals when grasping and lifting objects.

R Chris Miall, Orna Rosenthal, Kristin Ørstavik, Jonathan D Cole, Fabrice R Sarlegna

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. [Research progress on mechanical perturbation in stroke rehabilitation].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The neural mechanisms of manual dexterity.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

R Chris MiallSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. r.c.miall@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3002-1251
Orna RosenthalSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Kristin ØrstavikDepartment of Neurology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Jonathan D ColeCentre of Postgraduate Research and Education, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Fabrice R SarlegnaAix Marseille University, CNRS, ISM, Marseille, France.
University of Birmingham · GBBournemouth University · GBCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FROslo University Hospital · NO

Funding

CNRS AUTONCNRS DEFISENSRoyal Society International ExchangeWellcome Trust (GB) WT087554
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous work has highlighted the role of haptic feedback for manual dexterity, in particular for the control of precision grip forces between the index finger and thumb. It is unclear how fine motor skills involving more than just two digits might be affected, especially given that loss of sensation from the hand affects many neurological patients, and impacts on everyday actions. To assess the functional consequences of haptic deficits on multi-digit grasp of objects, we studied the ability of three rare individuals with permanent large-fibre sensory loss involving the entire upper limb. All three reported difficulties in everyday manual actions (ABILHAND questionnaire). Their performance in a reach-grasp-lift task was compared to that of healthy controls. Twenty objects of varying shape, mass, opacity and compliance were used. In the reach-to-grasp phase, we found slower movement, larger grip aperture and less dynamic modulation of grip aperture in deafferented participants compared to controls. Hand posture during the lift phase also differed; deafferented participants often adopted hand postures that may have facilitated visual guidance, and/or reduced control complexity. For example, they would extend fingers that were not in contact with the object, or fold these fingers into the palm of the hand. Variability in hand postures was increased in deafferented participants, particularly for smaller objects. Our findings provide new insights into how the complex control required for whole hand actions is compromised by loss of haptic feedback, whose contribution is, thus, highlighted.

Indexed as

AgedFeedback, SensoryFemaleHandHumansMaleMiddle AgedMotor SkillsPostureProprioceptionSensation DisordersTouch PerceptionGraspHapticsHumanManipulationProprioceptionSomatosensation

Identifiers

PMID31209510
PMCPMC6675781
OpenAlexW2949417124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.