↓ Skip to main content

Independent Long Fingers are not Essential for a Grasping Hand

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Independent Long Fingers are not Essential for a Grasping Hand
Published in
Scientific Reports, October 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep35545
Pubmed ID
Authors

Federico Montagnani, Marco Controzzi, Christian Cipriani

Abstract

The human hand is a complex integrated system with motor and sensory components that provides individuals with high functionality and elegant behaviour. In direct connection with the brain, the hand is capable of performing countless actions ranging from fine digit manipulation to the handling of heavy objects. However the question of which movements mostly contribute to the manipulation skills of the hand, and thus should be included in prosthetic hands, is yet to be answered. Building from our previous work, and assuming that a hand with independent long fingers allowed performance comparable to a hand with coupled fingers, here we explored the actual contribution of independent fingers while performing activities of daily living using custom built orthoses. Our findings show that, when an opposable thumb is present, independent long fingers provide a measureable advantage in performing activities of daily living only when precision grasps are involved. In addition, the results suggest that the remarkable grasping skills of the human hand rely more on the independent abduction/adduction of the fingers than on their independent flexion/extension. These findings are of interest to the designers of artificial hands, including biomimetic prostheses and exoskeletons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 46 61%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Computer Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 13 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2016.
All research outputs
#18,478,448
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#93,614
of 123,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,856
of 315,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,710
of 3,571 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,571 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.