ArticleCureus2026
Individual and Task-Specific Variability in Violin-Playing Kinematics Among Professional and Amateur Performers: A Pilot Motion-Capture Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Violin performance requires coordinated multi-joint and postural control, and performers may adopt different movement strategies. This pilot study primarily described participant-level heterogeneity and task-specific kinematic patterns in professional and amateur violinists, with secondary exploratory screening for nonoverlapping group ranges. Methods Six violinists (three professional and three amateur) were assessed using a 16-camera Vicon motion-capture system (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd., Oxford, UK) during a standardized phase using the same violin, bow, and shoulder rest. Three tasks with complete data were analyzed: a four-note slurred scale, a spiccato scale, and a concerto excerpt. Ten kinematic outcomes were derived from right upper-limb geometric proxy angles, pelvic-center displacement variability, and wrist path length. Analyses were descriptive and hypothesis-generating. Thirty task × outcome combinations were screened for complete nonoverlap between groups; with three participants per group, approximately three such combinations are expected by chance. Results Substantial interindividual heterogeneity was observed within both groups. Three of 30 task × outcome combinations showed nonoverlapping ranges, matching the number expected by chance, and none recurred across tasks. During spiccato, anteroposterior and vertical pelvic-center displacement variability were higher in all professionals; during the concerto excerpt, right wrist proxy-angle temporal variability was lower in all professionals. The 0.15-mm vertical pelvic-center separation was not interpreted as meaningful because study-specific measurement precision was not established. Conclusions No kinematic pattern consistently distinguished professional from amateur performers across tasks. The dominant finding was substantial participant-level heterogeneity and task-specific kinematic variation. Larger studies with repeated measurements and prospectively assessed playing-related musculoskeletal symptoms are needed to evaluate the clinical relevance of individualized movement profiles.
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.