ArticleScience robotics2024
Evaluating initial usability of a hand augmentation device across a large and diverse sample.
Article in Science robotics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Additive manufacturing-facilitated blow molding for functional thin-walled polymeric structures.Science advances · 2026Article
- Presence Is Reality: Rethinking Virtual and Real-World Consciousness.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2026Article
- Children's Embodiment of Non-Human Virtual Hand Forms.Developmental science · 2026Article
- The sixth finger illusion induced by palm outside stroking shows stable ownership and independence.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A neurocognitive pathway for engineering artificial touch.Science advances · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The advancement of motor augmentation and the broader domain of human-machine interaction rely on a seamless integration with users' physical and cognitive capabilities. These considerations may markedly fluctuate among individuals on the basis of their age, form, and abilities. There is a need to develop a standard for considering these diversity needs and preferences to guide technological development, and large-scale testing can provide us with evidence for such considerations. Public engagement events provide an important opportunity to build a bidirectional discourse with potential users for the codevelopment of inclusive and accessible technologies. We exhibited the Third Thumb, a hand augmentation device, at a public engagement event and tested participants from the general public, who are often not involved in such early technological development of wearable robotic technology. We focused on wearability (fit and control), ability to successfully operate the device, and ability levels across diversity factors relevant for physical technologies (gender, handedness, and age). Our inclusive design was successful in 99.3% of our diverse sample of 596 individuals tested (age range from 3 to 96 years). Ninety-eight percent of participants were further able to successfully manipulate objects using the extra thumb during the first minute of use, with no significant influences of gender, handedness, or affinity for hobbies involving the hands. Performance was generally poorer among younger children (aged ≤11 years). Although older and younger adults performed the task comparably, we identified age costs with the older adults. Our findings offer tangible demonstration of the initial usability of the Third Thumb for a broad demographic.
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.