Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32995096›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Comparable behaviour of ring and little fingers due to an artificial reduction in thumb contribution to hold objects.

Banuvathy Rajakumar, Varadhan Skm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Banuvathy RajakumarDepartment of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India.
Varadhan SkmDepartment of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe human hand plays a crucial role in accomplishing activities of daily living. The contribution of each finger in the human hand is remarkably unique in establishing object stabilization. According to the mechanical advantage hypothesis, the little finger tends to exert a greater normal force than the ring finger during a supination moment production task to stabilize the object. Similarly, during pronation, the index finger produces more normal force when compared with the middle finger. Hence, the central nervous system employs the peripheral fingers for torque generation to establish the equilibrium as they have a mechanical advantage of longer moment arms for normal force. In our study, we tested whether the mechanical advantage hypothesis is supported in a task in which the contribution of thumb was artificially reduced. We also computed the safety margin of the individual fingers and thumb. METHODOLOGY: Fifteen participants used five-finger prismatic precision grip to hold a custom-built handle with a vertical railing on the thumb side. A slider platform was placed on the railing such that the thumb sensor could move either up or down. There were two experimental conditions. In the "Fixed" condition, the slider was mechanically fixed, and hence the thumb sensor could not move. In the "Free" condition, the slider platform on which the thumb sensor was placed could freely move. In both conditions, the instruction was to grasp and hold the handle (and the platform) in static equilibrium. We recorded tangential and normal forces of all the fingers.

resultsThe distribution of fingertip forces and moments changed depending on whether the thumb platform was movable (or not). In the free condition, the drop in the tangential force of thumb was counteracted by an increase in the normal force of the ring and little finger. Critically, the normal forces of the ring and little finger were statistically equivalent. The safety margin of the index and middle finger did not show a significant drop in the free condition when compared to fixed condition.

conclusionWe conclude that our results does not support the mechanical advantage hypothesis at least for the specific mechanical task considered in our study. In the free condition, the normal force of little finger was comparable to the normal force of the ring finger. Also, the safety margin of the thumb and ring finger increased to prevent slipping of the thumb platform and to maintain the handle in static equilibrium during the free condition. However, the rise in the safety margin of the ring finger was not compensated by a drop in the safety margin of the index and middle finger.

Indexed as

Chain effectsMechanical advantagePrehensionSafety marginThumb

Identifiers

PMID32995096
PMCPMC7502246

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.