ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Average performance and performance variability on a brief functional fine motor test reflect distinct behavioral constructs in aging.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prior work in older adults has developed a brief functional fine motor test, which involves repeated timed trials of an upper-limb task. Performance has been associated with global and domain-specific neuropsychological tests as well as putative markers of Alzheimer's disease when scored using variability in trial time; however, the extent to which task performance depends on motor ability has not been established nor quantified. This retrospective study examined whether mean trial time and trial time variability (measured as intrasubject standard deviation in trial time) were differentially associated with standard assessments of motor and cognitive function. Forty-eight older adults with no functional impairment completed the functional fine motor test, which was compared to grooved pegboard test performance, grip strength, and Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test (RCFT) delayed recall. Generalized linear models included age, sex, education, and both scoring methods on the functional fine motor test (mean trial time and trial time variability) as predictors. Longer mean trial time was associated with slower grooved pegboard performance and lower grip strength, whereas trial time variability was not associated with either standard motor assessment. These findings, along with patterns of partial correlations, suggest that mean trial time may predominantly reflect motor function while trial time variability does not. Together, these findings highlight the value of considering both mean performance and performance variability in tasks that include multiple trials, offering an efficient approach to assessing multiple domains in older adults.
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.