ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025
Comparison of joint position sense measured by inertial sensors embedded in portable digital devices with different masses.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability and criterion validity of a wearable IMU for ankle joint position sense: agreement with isokinetic dynamometry and discrimination of chronic ankle instability.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Editorial: Unraveling the complexity of sensory space perception.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Joint position sense can be assessed using various devices, including inertial sensors embedded in smartphones and wearable technologies. However, the mass of these portable instruments may influence proprioceptive input during joint repositioning tasks. Purpose: This study aimed to compare participants' performance in a joint position sense task using a smartphone and an ultra-light wearable sensor to measure elbow angular displacement. Methods: Sixteen adults participated in a passive-active joint position sense test. In this task, participants were required to memorize a passively flexed elbow position and actively reposition the joint across four trials. The angular position during joint repositioning, as well as absolute and relative errors, were compared between trials using a smartphone (weighing several hundred grams) and an ultra-light wearable sensor (weighing only a few dozen grams). Agreement analysis between the devices and reliability assessments for inter-device measurements and for each device were conducted. Results: No significant variation in the joint angle at the target position was observed across trials using the ultra-light wearable sensor. In contrast, a significant increase in joint angle at the target position was noted when the smartphone was used. Absolute errors were similar between devices, while relative errors showed significant differences in the first two trials. Overall, systematic biases favored the measurements obtained with the smartphone and inter-device reliability were moderate. Smartphone demonstrated moderate-to-good reliability, and the wearable had poor-to-moderate in test-retest evaluation. Conclusion: Although measurements from the two devices showed agreement, significant systematic biases were observed, favoring the heavier device. Both the smartphone and the wearable sensor provided reliable measurements for assessing elbow joint position sense.
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.