Computerized Finger Tapping Task in Adult Unipolar Depressed Patients and Healthy Subjects: Influence of Age, Gender, Education, and Hand Dominance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Current diagnostic criteria for depression include psychomotor retardation, being the Finger Tapping Test (FTT) as one of the most utilized instruments to assess fine psychomotor performance. Method: This study aimed to compare the performance of a sample of 51 unipolar depressed patients (30 women and 21 men, with a mean age of 45.12 years old [SD = 14.09]) with 51 healthy controls (29 women and 22 men, with a mean age of 44.49 years old [SD = 15.59]) in a computerized version of the Finger Tapping Test (FTT) from the Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL). Another objective was to test this version’s validity in comparison to other FTTs. Results: We found significant differences between depressed patients and healthy controls. Significant effects of age and gender were found. Conclusion: Results allowed us to identify differences in performance between the two groups, therefore this version of the FTT revealed adequate reliability values, one instrument accessible to all clinicians.
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 | 0.000 | 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".