ArticlePeerJ2020
Comparable behaviour of ring and little fingers due to an artificial reduction in thumb contribution to hold objects.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct behavior of the little finger during the vertical translation of an unsteady thumb platform while grasping.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Comparable neural and behavioural performance in dominant and non-dominant hands during grasping tasks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Task demands modulate distal limb handedness: A comparative analysis of prehensile synergies of the dominant and non-dominant hand.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evidence to support the mechanical advantage hypothesis of grasping at low force levels.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Datasets of fingertip forces while grasping a handle with unsteady thumb platform.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Support for mechanical advantage hypothesis of grasping cannot be explained only by task mechanics.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.