ArticleResearch square2025
Dynamic Thumb Proprioception: Quantification with a Novel Robotic Task.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The thumb plays a crucial role in hand function, yet its proprioceptive abilities remain poorly understood. Here we quantified dynamic thumb localization ability in unimpaired participants, using a novel task in which a robot moved the thumb in a circle and participants pressed a button when they felt their thumb aligning with a target point on a screen. After pressing the button, they received visual error feedback in the form of a ball jumping toward the target. To characterize thumb localization ability, we varied thumb speed and rotation diameter, assessed the effect of a propriovisual rotational perturbation, and compared index finger performance. Following task familiarization, thumb localization error was ~25° and did not change significantly with speed or circle diameter. Reversing thumb rotation increased error followed by rapid error adaptation across the next 20 trials, as would be expected if individuals formed an internal model based on a body-centered (movement-aligned) frame of reference rather than a world-centered spatial frame. Localization error was larger for the thumb than the index finger error for the same task (p = 0.02) and was correlated with a different, robotic assessment of finger proprioception (ρ = 0.61, p = 0.001). These findings indicate that dynamic thumb localization is somewhat inaccurate, although it can leverage visual feedback within a body-centered reference frame, a form of passive, cross-sensory adaptation. Further, in unimpaired adults, the dynamic proprioceptive abilities of the thumb and index finger are related, with thumb proprioception ability being less accurate than the 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.