Tactile spatial acuity in elderly persons: assessment with grating domes and relationship with manual dexterity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we sought to better define the limit of spatial resolution at the fingertips of elderly participants (n = 30, age 60-95 years) using an extended set of JVP grating domes, incorporating four new grating dimensions (2.5-, 3.5-, 4.0- and 4.5-mm width). A secondary aim was to examine whether deficits in tactile acuity could be related to hand dysfunction in older adults. Spatial resolution thresholds were determined by the finest grating whose orientation (dominant index finger) could be reported reliably. Manual dexterity was assessed with the Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT). The extended set of domes improved threshold measurements in a majority of participants (21/30). Still, accurate threshold estimates could not be obtained in one third of the participants, mostly in the older age group (8/9, 74-95 years). Grating resolution thresholds at the index finger were strongly correlated (r = 0.66, p<0.01) with dexterity scores derived from the GPT. From these results, we conclude that the 2.5- and 3.5-mm grating domes are suitable additions when assessing spatial acuity at the fingertips of older subjects between 60 and 70 years of age (mean threshold, 2.7+/-0.6 mm). For the older ones, the 4.0- and 4.5-mm domes can improve threshold measurements but interpretation of values can be complicated by the presence of undiagnosed pathologies (e.g., diffuse polyneuropathy) as people advance in age. The strong relationship between grating resolution thresholds and dexterity scores indicates that an impaired spatial acuity at the fingertips may translate into great difficulties in tasks requiring fine manipulations. These findings have important implications for the assessment of hand function in older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".