Hand Motion Control Ability Between Young and Older Adults: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age-related differences in motor skills have been extensively studied, with growing interest in using behavioral data for cognitive assessment. Compared to traditional tools like the Mini-Mental State Examination or Cognitive Impairment Screening Test, behavior-based methods offer the advantage of shorter testing durations, less learning effects, and continuous data tracking. Hand movements, in particular, provide a practical way to gather motor performance data with fewer spatial constraints. This study aims to explore whether hand rotation movement can effectively distinguish age-related motor skill differences, with future applications potentially extending to cognitive assessments, including early detection of mild cognitive impairment. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates whether hand rotation movements can be used to distinguish 2 age groups, young adults (aged 20-29 years) and older adults (aged 65-80 years). We hypothesize that differences in hand motion control ability will exist between the 2 groups. In total, 7 hand motion measurement indicators related to single hand test indicators, time comparison indicators between rotations, and angle comparison indicators between rotations were defined to test this hypothesis, aiming to identify meaningful indicators for older adults experiencing normal aging before conducting experiments on patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. METHODS: A total of 68 participants, 39 older adults (aged 65-80 years) and 29 young adults (aged 20-29 years), all capable of normal arm, hand, and finger movements, participated in the experiment. Participants sat facing a webcam and were asked to perform hand rotation movements as quickly and accurately as possible with both hands for 10 seconds. They performed 3 trials with a 30-second break in between. For statistical verification, we set the significance level at .05 and analyzed the data using the generalized estimation equations model to assess the effects of the between-subject factor (age group: younger vs older) and the within-subject factors (hand: left vs right, and trials 1, 2, and 3). RESULTS: Among the 7 measured indicators, 3 (total rotation count, angle, and time) showed statistically significant differences between age groups. Younger participants performed more rotations (B=5.29, P=.002), demonstrated a greater range of motion (B=1334.37, P=.007), and completed the task in less time (B=0.99, P=.003), indicating age-related differences in upper limb motor function. Trial order also had a significant main effect on rotation count and angle. Trial 1 differed significantly from trials 2 and 3, while no difference was observed between trials 2 and 3, suggesting that trial 1 may reflect a practice effect. CONCLUSIONS: The findings revealed that the older adult group demonstrated statistically significant differences compared to the young adult group in their ability to control hand rotation movements. A learning effect was observed across the 3 trials, suggesting that the first trial should be discarded for use as a stable measurement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".