An alternative 6-inch octave keyboard reduces forearm muscle activation level and improves finger postures in expert pianists with smaller hand spans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A small hand span is a risk factor of musculoskeletal injuries in pianists. Alternatively sized keyboards are recommended to help smaller hand pianists reduce risk of injury. However, in comparison to a 6.5″ octave conventional keyboard, it is unclear if a 6.0" octave keyboard (DS6.0) reduces forearm muscle activations and no research has investigated if keyboard size impacts finger joint kinematics. The objective was to determine the effect of keyboard size and hand size on pianists' right forearm muscle activation and finger joint posture when playing large handspan chords. Smaller hand pianists exhibited 11.2-13.8 % greater finger/wrist extensor activation and more abducted/less flexed finger postures compared to larger hand pianists. Smaller hand pianists playing on a DS6.0 reduced finger/wrist extensor activation by 2.5-3.2 %. Fifth finger posture was more flexed and less abducted. Results suggest that playing on a DS6.0 might reduce the exposure to risk of injury in pianists with smaller hands.
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) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".