Comprehensive assessment of fine motor movement and cognitive function among older adults in China: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fine motor skills are closely related to cognitive function. However, there is currently no comprehensive assessment of fine motor movement and how it corresponds with cognitive function. To conduct a complete assessment of fine motor and clarify the relationship between various dimensions of fine motor and cognitive function. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study with 267 community-based participants aged ≥ 60 years in Beijing, China. We assessed four tests performance and gathered detailed fine motor indicators using Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) motion capture technology. The wearable MEMS device provided us with precise fine motion metrics, while Chinese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to assess cognitive function. We adopted logistic regression to analyze the relationship between fine motor movement and cognitive function. RESULTS: 129 (48.3%) of the participants had cognitive impairment. The vast majority of fine motor movements have independent linear correlations with MoCA-BJ scores. According to logistic regression analysis, completion time in the Same-pattern tapping test (OR = 1.033, 95%CI = 1.003-1.063), Completion time of non-dominant hand in the Pieces flipping test (OR = 1.006, 95%CI = 1.000-1.011), and trajectory distance of dominant hand in the Pegboard test (OR = 1.044, 95%CI = 1.010-1.068), which represents dexterity, are related to cognitive impairment. Coordination, represented by lag time between hands in the Same-pattern tapping (OR = 1.663, 95%CI = 1.131-2.444), is correlated with cognitive impairment. Coverage in the Dual-hand drawing test as an important indicator of stability is negatively correlated with cognitive function (OR = 0.709, 95%CI = 0.6501-0.959). Based on the above 5-feature model showed consistently high accuracy and sensitivity at the MoCA-BJ score (ACU = 0.80-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: The results of a comprehensive fine-motor assessment that integrates dexterity, coordination, and stability are closely related to cognitive functioning. Fine motor movement has the potential to be a reliable predictor of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".