ArticleJournal of medical signals and sensors
Fine Motor Assessment in Upper Extremity Using Custom-Made Electronic Pegboard Test.
Article in Journal of medical signals and sensors. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Development of artificial intelligence and multi-sensor-based dexterity assessment system: performance evaluation.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2025Article
- Reliability of a gamified tablet-based tapping digital test for assessing motor coordination in adults.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Exploring the Impact of an Interactive Electronic Pegboard on Manual Dexterity and Cognitive Skills of Patients With Stroke: Preliminary Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Interactive Electronic Pegboard for Enhancing Manual Dexterity and Cognitive Abilities: Instrument Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Clinical Utility and Usability of the Digital Box and Block Test: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A fine motor test involves the manipulation of smaller objects with fingers, hands, and wrists. This test is an integral part of the evaluation of an upper extremity function. Nine Hole Peg Test (NHPT) is one among such tests which assess the ability to manipulate pegs with the thumb and finger. There is a need to develop a fine motor assessment tool which is reproducible and mimics closely the natural movement of hands. The aim of this work is to develop an electronic pegboard which is easy to administer and efficient in terms of time. Pegboard device is modified and standardized by (1) Adding electronic circuits to custom-made pegboard and programmed using a microcontroller (ATmega2560), (2) Following a specific sequence in placing and picking the pegs from the board, and (3) Using Infrared sensor and robust algorithm to ensure one peg movement at a time. The setup is administered on 15 healthy participants (nine females, six males aged between 21 and 80) and the outcome is compared with the results of traditional NHPT. Predefined sequence in moving the pegs and electronic timer features provide reliable results for repeated measurements and facilitate storing test score in a digital repository. This data could be used as reference data during the follow-up visits. The maximum difference between the measured timing between the present setup and traditional NHPT is about 6.7%. It is important to note that, due to inherent delay (response time) in the traditional NHPT, when compared to present setup the measured timing is always on the higher side. Nondependency on the manual stopwatch to record the time and hands-free of any wearable device are the advantages of the present setup.
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.