Age-Related Changes in Grip Force and Dynamics of Hand Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors investigated whether older adults (n = 16; mean age = 65 years) increased grip force to compensate for load force fluctuations during up and down movements more than young adults did (n = 16; mean age = 24 years) and whether older and young adults exhibited similar adaptation of grip force to alterations in friction associated with changes in object surface texture. As previously reported, older adults used a higher level of grip force than young adults during static holding. Increased grip force was observed in the older group during movement. The increase was appropriate to the lower coefficient of friction estimated for the older group. In both groups, grip force was greater with a smooth than with a rough surface (the latter having the higher coefficient of friction) during static holding and during movement. Moreover, grip force modulation was equally well synchronized with load force fluctuation during movement in the two groups. The authors concluded that changes in organization of grip force with age are well adapted to change in hand-object interface properties. Elevated grip force in older adults does not necessarily signify a fundamental change in synchronizing grip force modulation with load force fluctuation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".