ArticleHuman factors2026
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Age Simulation Gloves.
Article in Human factors, 2026. 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
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
ObjectiveThis study evaluated the effectiveness of age simulation gloves in replicating age-related declines in hand function.BackgroundCommercially available age simulation gloves are increasingly used. However, their ability to replicate age-related physical decline remains largely unverified.MethodTwenty healthy adults (mean age: 26.8 years) completed assessments under three conditions: with no glove, using a Cambridge Simulation Glove (CG), and using the CG combined with tremor simulation (TS). Grip and pinch strength (Biometrics electronic dynamometer and pinch meter), gross (Box and Block Test) and fine (Grooved Pegboard Test) motor dexterity, hand function (Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure), postural tremor (MetaMotionC accelerometers), tactile sensitivity (Semmes-Weinstein Monofilaments), and usability (System Usability Scale) were evaluated. Performance with glove conditions was compared against normative data of older adults if available.ResultsGrip strength and gross and fine motor dexterity declined in both glove conditions, aligning with normative ageing values. However, pinch strength and functional performance did not show consistent replication of normative ageing. Usability scores were below acceptable thresholds for both gloves. While the addition of tremor simulation increased peak frequency consistent with ageing, it did not replicate the rise in amplitude.ConclusionOverall, the gloves partially replicated age-related hand function decline. Improvements in pinch force, tremor fidelity, and ergonomic design are needed to enhance realism and usability in educational, clinical, and design contexts.ApplicationFindings can guide in selecting or improving age simulation tools to better support age inclusive product development and assessment.
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.