| Title |
Age-related changes in the joint position sense of the human hand
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s37573 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tobias Kalisch, Jan-Christoph Kattenstroth, Rebecca Kowalewski, Martin Tegenthoff, Hubert R Dinse |
| Abstract |
Age-related changes in lower limb joint position sense and their contributions to postural stability are well documented. In contrast, only a few studies have investigated the effect of age on proprioceptive hand function. Here, we introduce a novel test for measuring joint position sense in the fingers of the human hand. In a concurrent matching task, subjects had to detect volume differences between polystyrene balls grasped with their dominant (seven test stimuli: 126-505 cm(3)) and their nondominant hand (three reference stimuli: 210, 294, and 505 cm(3)). A total of 21 comparisons were performed to assess the number of errors, the weight of errors (ie, the volume difference between test and reference stimuli), and the direction of errors (ie, over- or underestimation of test stimulus). The test was applied to 45 healthy subjects aged 21 to 79 years. Our results revealed that all variables changed significantly with age, with the number of errors showing the strongest increase. We also assessed tactile acuity (two-point discrimination thresholds) and sensorimotor performance (pegboard performance) in a subset of subjects, but these scores did not correlate with joint position sense performance, indicating that the test reveals specific information about joint position sense that is not captured with pure sensory or motor tests. The average test-retest reliability assessed on 3 consecutive days was 0.8 (Cronbach's alpha). Our results demonstrate that this novel test reveals age-related decline in joint position sense acuity that is independent from sensorimotor performance. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 23% |
| Unknown | 16 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2012.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,779
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,450
of 202,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 202,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.