Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32817897›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2020

The execution of the Grooved Pegboard test in a Dual-Task situation: A pilot study.

Luca Petrigna, Simona Pajaujiene, Gaetano Marco Iacona, Ewan Thomas, Antonio Paoli, Antonino Bianco, Antonio Palma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Enhancement of Motor Learning and Corticospinal Excitability: The Role of Electroacupuncture and Motor Training in Healthy Volunteers.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

7 authors.

Luca PetrignaDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Simona PajaujieneDepartment of Coaching Science, Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Gaetano Marco IaconaDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Ewan ThomasDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Antonio PaoliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Antonino BiancoDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Antonio PalmaDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundManual dexterity is an important aspect in everyday life, which is widely studied through the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT). Since Dual-Tasks (DT) activities are widely investigated and important to simulate everyday life situations, the objectives of the present pilot study were the evaluation of the effect of a cognitive task and a motor task during the performance of the GPT and the feasibility of the GPT in a DT contest. A secondary objective was to evaluate the training effect of the GPT.

methodsA total of 31 young adults (20 man and 11 woman, age (SD): 27.7 (2.5)) performed the GPT eight times to understand the presence of a training effect before performing the GPT in DT. The additional tasks were a secondary cognitive task and a secondary motor task.

resultsAll participants were able to complete the required conditions. The GPT performed in motor DT were significantly slower than those performed singularly (p < 0.01). The GPT performed with the cognitive task was slower than the secondary motor task (p < 0.05). A training effect was present up to the 4

conclusionsThe GPT can be executed with a cognitive or motor task to increase the difficulty of the trial to better evaluate manual dexterity and cognitive capacities.

Indexed as

Counting backward testFinger tapping testManual dexterityMusculoskeletal systemNeurologyNeurosciencePhysiologyPublic healthSecondary task

Identifiers

PMID32817897
PMCPMC7426567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.