https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8776-8594
Figures
Abstract
Background
Restricted motion during touch screen device use may contribute to wrist overuse injuries. Wrist radioulnar deviation and extension while using touch screen devices and digital or manual counterparts in male and female medical professional dominant and non-dominant hands were quantified to test the hypothesis that mobile touch screen device use reduces wrist motion.
Methods
An active motion detection system was used to record wrist motion of 12 participants while: tablet swiping and turning book pages; raising a cell and traditional phone to the ear; texting and typing; and entering numbers on a cell phone and manual calculator. Medial and lateral wrist surface range of motion (ROM) and minimum and maximum wrist radial-ulnar deviation and flexion-extension were quantified.
Results
Device, sex and handedness effects were determined (P<0.05). Maximum medial radial deviation and ROM were greater using a cell versus traditional phone. Maximum medial radial deviation was higher in the nondominant wrist during backward tablet swiping and while backward page turning versus tablet swiping. Maximum and minimum medial extension angles and ROM were greater while typing versus texting. Female nondominant hand maximum lateral extension and ROM were greater for typing versus texting and maximum medial extension and lateral extension ROM greater during manual versus cell phone calculator use with handedness combined. Maximum lateral extension and ROM were greater in females versus males using manual calculators.
Citation: Lopez MJ, Takawira C, Fox MP, Wang P, Boatwright E, Lucak T, et al. (2023) Wrist motion is distinct between touch screen and manual or digital devices. PLoS ONE 18(10): e0290973. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290973
Editor: Aliah Faisal Shaheen, Brunel University London, UNITED KINGDOM
Received: October 24, 2022; Accepted: August 21, 2023; Published: October 9, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Lopez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data is available here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24085701.v1.
Funding: MJL Project 106719 Tynewald Foundation https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/tynewald-foundation,817001947/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Complex wrist anatomy and nearly continuous motion during daily activities contribute to high propensity for overuse injuries [1]. Repetitive motions within or beyond the normal joint range of motion (ROM) as well as prolonged static positioning contribute to musculoskeletal disorders [2–4]. Digital devices constitute a rapidly enlarging component of work and leisure activities, and frequent, extended use is associated with musculoskeletal injuries [5–14]. Quantification of wrist motion associated with device use is central to design, posture and positioning recommendations, and guidelines for safe and efficient use [7].
Wrist angles and ROM are typically measured in flexion-extension and radial-ulnar deviation as two- or three-dimensional angles, and dynamic wrist kinematic measures requires real-time data collection technology like optical motion capture systems [15]. The wrist joint axis is often defined as a point between the radial and ulnar styloid processes with the wrist joint center just distal to the midpoint of that axis [16–20]. Wrist joint angles and ROM are often indirectly derived from vectors between bony and virtual landmarks with the wrist center defined as a designated vertex, though joint coordinate systems and joint center triangulation vary [4, 15, 18, 19, 21–24]. Given complex carpal joint kinematics and distinct joint surface motion, direct measures of the medial and lateral joint surface maximum and minimum angles during touch screen, manual and digital device use may elucidate pathomechanics of wrist pain associated them [25].
The functional range of motion for the human wrist is determined during activities of daily living but do not usually include mobile or digital devices [26]. Device size, weight and actions required for use tend to decrease with advancing technology, potentially leading to less wrist excursion. Constrained motion and lack of a neutral resting position during is thought to contribute to musculoskeletal pain and injury [4, 13, 14]. Wrist motion can vary between males and females and dominant and nondominant limbs for a given task, so each should be considered for device use [23, 27–30], This study’s objective was quantification of the minimum and maximum, radioulnar deviation and flexion-extension of the lateral and medial wrist surfaces while using touch screen devices and their digital or manual counterparts in dominant and nondominant hands of male and female medical professionals to test the hypothesis that mobile touch screen device use reduces wrist motion.
Materials and methods
Participants
The study was approved by the institutional review board (Protocol #9078) and study subjects gave informed written consent to participate. Equal numbers of male or female medical school personnel with left or right dominant hands completed a series of activities in identical order. Inclusion criteria included: (1) 20 to 40 years old; (2) single dominant hand (no ambidexterity) according to the Edinburgh inventory [31]; (3) no history of upper extremity musculoskeletal pathology; (4) no current neurological deficits; (5) no joint pain or swelling. A licensed physician examined limbs prior to study participation. Data was obtained from 6 males (29.8 ± 1.8 years (mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM)) and 6 females (28.8 ± 2.1 years). Participant number was based on an a priori power analysis of mean difference in pre- and post-training scores for dominant and non-dominant hand computer mouse use [32].
Devices
Devices included in this study (Fig 1) included a cell phone with a touch screen (138×67×7 mm, diagonal length 119 mm, 148 g, Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA), traditional phone receiver (200×30×20 mm, 246 g, Cortelco Inc, Corinth, MS); book (234×155×25 mm, HarperCollins Publishers LLC, New York, NY); manual calculator (145×81×18 mm, 65 g, Texas Instruments Inc, Dallas, TX); tablet with a touch activated display screen (241×186×9 mm, diagonal length 246 mm, Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA); and computer keyboard (460×160×20 mm, incline angle 6°, Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX).
Photographs of devices tested in the study including a cell phone (A), traditional phone receiver (B), book (C), manual calculator (D), tablet (E), and keyboard (F).
Procedures
A total of 8 wireless infrared markers (2 × 1.5 × 1 cm) of a 3D active motion detection system (Charnwood Dynamics Ltd) were affixed to the skin over anatomical landmarks on the medial and lateral surfaces of the forearm, wrist, and hand: 5th metacarpal head, hamate, ulnar styloid, ulna midpoint, 2nd metacarpal head, trapezium, radial styloid, and radius midpoint. The markers and two marker drive boxes were attached to the skin with pieces of VELCRO® adhered to the skin with wig adhesive and to the markers and drive boxes with cyanoacrylate glue. The medial surface carpal angle vertex was the intersection of vectors between markers on the 2nd metacarpal bone base and trapezium and markers on the radial styloid and radius midpoint. The lateral surface carpal angle vertex was formed by the intersection of vectors formed by markers on the 5th metacarpal bone head and hamate and markers on the ulna styloid and ulnar midpoint (Fig 2).
Marker Placement on a Left Hand with the Angles Shown for Deviation (Left) and Extension (Right). The carpal angle vertex on the lateral joint surface was formed by the intersection of vectors formed by markers 1 and 3 and markers 5 and 7. The carpal angle vertex on the medial joint surface was formed by the intersection of vectors between markers 2 and 4 and markers 6 and 8. For purposes of illustration, the lateral surface angle is elevated in the extension figure on the right.
Activities
Participants were seated in an office chair at a desk that was adjusted in height so the elbow rested on the table while flexed at about 90° with the shoulder relaxed. Each performed 4 activities with the dominant hand first. Immediately prior to each activity, subjects practiced with the designated hand three times. A tone triggered participants to start three repetitions of an activity within 15 seconds when another tone sounded. During activities, participants rested their forearms on the desk surface, and between repetitions, rested their hands and forearms on the desk surface in a prone (neutral) position [33]. Activities included: raise a cell phone from the desk surface to the ear on the ipsilateral side as the hand and return it to the desk; raise a traditional phone receiver from the cradle to the ear on the ipsilateral side as the hand and return it to the cradle; swipe three times forward and then three times backward on a tablet on the desk surface; turn three pages forward and three pages backward in a book on the desk surface; text the sentence “The red fox jumped over the sleeping brown hound” holding a cell phone at a comfortable distance from the face using two hands; type the sentence on a computer keyboard using both hands; enter the numbers “10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 0” on a cell phone calculator with it on the desk surface; enter the numbers on a manual calculator on the desk surface. Two sensing units (CX1, Charnwood Dynamics Ltd) were situated 2 m from and facing the desk with the center of each approximately 20 cm above the desk surface. The origin of the virtual coordinate axis was on the desk surface at the center and oriented with the positive z, y, and x axes upward vertically, toward the desk front and toward the participant’s right, respectively.
Data reduction procedures
Data was collected at 200 Hz and included when marker visibility was 80–100% for a repetition. Angles were selected for each activity that were consistently measurable and corresponded to the predominant motion. Radial deviation was quantified for raising a cell phone or receiver to the ear and swiping or turning pages backward, ulnar deviation for swiping or turning book pages forward, and extension for texting, typing, and entering numbers on a cell phone and manual calculator. Two-dimensional, minimum and maximum extension (y-z plane) and radial and ulnar deviation (x-y plane) angles of the lateral and medial joint surfaces were recorded by the system software (Coda cx1, Charnwood Dynamics, Ltd.) and exported to spreadsheet software (Excel with Microsoft 365, Microsoft Corp.). The software setup included use of individual marker identities to create the medial and lateral free vectors, and
and
and
, respectively (Fig 3). The two vectors on each surface were used to define the medial and lateral vector angles in the system software in the x-y and y-z planes. Prior to each activity, a baseline angle was determined in the appropriate plane at the resting (prone) position. As indicated, the angles were recorded at 200 Hz during each repetition of all activities. The minimum and maximum angles used for statistical analysis were the absolute values of the difference between the baseline angle and the minimum and maximum angles recorded by the system for each repetition. The ROM was the absolute value of the difference between the calculated minimum and maximum angles except for swiping or turning book pages forward and backward. For those measures, the radioulnar ROM was the absolute difference between the calculated maximum ulnar and maximum radial deviation, the maximum angles in each direction recorded by the system, minus the baseline values. Marker locations permitted repeatable placement with which to generate the vectors used to define the measured angles. The angles were intended to represent direct measures like those measured on the lateral and medial joint surfaces with a manual goniometer.
Maximum medial radial deviation angle and range of motion (ROM) while raising a standard phone receiver or cell phone to the ear (least squares mean ± SEM). Columns with different letters are significantly between devices (p<0.05).
Statistical analysis
Results are presented as least squares mean (LSM) ± SEM. Normal data distribution was confirmed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. A mixed ANOVA model with fixed effects of sex, handedness, activity, and their interactions, and random effect of participant was used to evaluate differences between sexes, touch screen and digital or manual devices, and dominant versus nondominant hands for each wrist surface. Fixed effects were evaluated for each activity with Fisher’s least significant difference post-hoc comparisons. Results were combined for fixed effects that were not significant for an activity. All statistical analyses were performed with JMP® Pro v. 14 and significance considered at P ≤ 0.05.
Results
All results are provided as LSM ± SEM (Tables 1 and 2). The mean ± SD for each outcome is also included (Tables 3 and 4). Statistically significant differences are depicted in graphs (LSM ± SEM). The wrist surface, medial or lateral, and direction of angular deviation from a neutral position, radial, ulnar, flexion or extension, are indicated for each minimum and maximum angle. For ROM, the wrist surface and direction of angular deviation are included.
The maximum medial radial deviation angle and medial radial deviation ROM were greater using a cell versus a traditional phone receiver (13.5 ± 1.6 versus 7.7 ± 2.3, P = 0.04; and 7.4 ± 1.0 versus 4.6 ± 1.12, P = 0.01) with sex and handedness combined phone (Fig 3). The maximum medial radial deviation angle was greater while turning pages versus swiping backward with sexes and handedness combined (35.7 ± 4.4 versus 19.0 ±3.2, P = 0.04), and the angle was greater in the nondominant versus dominant wrist with sexes combined (44.2 ± 6.8 versus 7.8 ± 6.9, P = 0.0024; Fig 4). With sex and handedness combined, the maximum medial extension angle and range of motion were greater while typing versus texting (23.8 ± 2.3 versus 10.8 ± 1.8, P = 0.0001; and 13.4 ± 0.5 versus 6.2 ± 1.4, P = 0.0001) and the minimum medial extension angle was smaller for texting (4.8 ± 1.2 versus 10.3 ± 1.7, P = 0.002; Fig 5A). The maximum lateral extension angle and ROM were greater while typing versus texting in the female nondominant wrist (29.1 ± 3.8 versus 5.9 ± 4.7, P = 0.0005; and 19.2 ± 3.4 versus 0.5 ± 3.9, P = 0.005; Fig 5B). With handedness combined, the maximum medial extension angle was greater while using a manual versus cell phone calculator in females (27.1 ± 3.9 versus 18.3 ± 3.7, P = 0.005), the maximum lateral extension angle was greater in females versus males while using a manual calculator (30.1 ± 4.6 versus 15.6 ± 4.1, P = 0.04), and the lateral carpal extension ROM was greater in females versus males while using a manual calculator (21.0 ± 3.7 versus 9.3 ± 3.2, P = 0.02) and in females while using a manual versus cell phone calculator (21.0 ± 3.7 versus 7.8 ± 3.7, P = 0.01; Fig 5C).
Maximum medial radial deviation (least squares mean ± SEM) while swiping on a tablet or turning book pages backward. Columns with different letters within comparison are significantly different (p<0.05).
Maximum medial extension and range of motion (ROM) and minimum medial extension (A) and female maximum lateral extension and ROM (B) while texting or typing, and maximum medial extension, maximum lateral extension, and lateral extension ROM while using a cell phone or manual calculator (C, least squares mean ± SEM). Columns with different letters within each comparison are significantly different (p<0.05).
Discussion
The hypothesis, mobile touch screen device use reduces wrist motion, was rejected because it was not true in all tested devices. Specifically, medial radial deviation and ROM were higher using a cell versus traditional phone. However, swiping on a tablet, texting, and using a cell phone calculator did appear to reduce wrist motion relative to manual or digital counterparts. Differences in wrist motion for specific devices were also evident between sexes and dominant versus nondominant hands, and many were distinct between medial or lateral wrist surfaces. The results indicate that wrist motion using touch screen and manual or key activated digital devices varies with joint surface and are affected by sex and handedness, important considerations for device design and use recommendations to prevent overuse injury.
Many detectable differences in wrist motion among devices in this study were with sex and handedness combined, presumably because their effects are inseparable for many activities. The higher medial radial deviation associated with cell phone use exemplifies this point. Cell phones tend to be wider than standard phone receivers, and the distance between the hand and ear with a cell phone is shorter than with a receiver. Wrist radioulnar deviation during merchandise bagging was greater when grasping 10 cm versus 5 cm diameter objects [34]. In this study, the greater radial deviation for cell phone use may be attributable to the larger grasp required, about 2 times that of the receiver, as well as closer proximity of the hand to the ear. Speakers that obviate the need for static hand positioning may reduce potential for wrist injury during frequent or prolonged verbal phone communication.
The maximum medial radial deviation for page turning versus swiping and maximum medial extension and ROM and minimum medial extension for typing versus texting were sufficiently distinct between devices, but not hand or sex, to be detected. However, motion was lower for touch screen devices. While the initial direction, radial or ulnar deviation, for backward page turning or swiping was different depending on the hand, left or right, in use, only medial radial deviation was significantly higher for page turning. The process of semi-grasping, elevating, and releasing a book page requires more complex wrist motion than swiping on a tablet, and swiping requires sustained contact in a more constrained space [4]. Greater medial extension angle and ROM for typing versus texting and maximum medial extension angle and lateral extension ROM during female manual versus cell phone calculator use could also be associated with device attributes, specifically key activation [35, 36]. Key activation required to text on a cell phone with a keypad requires greater thumb flexion-extension and ROM compared to a touchscreen [35]. As such, the act of key activation versus touch may increase wrist motion, though the effect would likely vary with key and keyboard design.
There is no universally accepted model of carpal bone motion, but current understanding is that the distal row, hamate, capitate, trapezoid, and trapezium, moves more uniformly than the proximal row, triquetrum, lunate, and scaphoid [25, 37]. Variable bony kinematics and kinetics may allow for unique medial and lateral joint surface motion. Wrist pain is often specific to the ulnar (lateral) or radial (medial) side from conditions like trapeziometacarpal joint osteoarthritis that preferentially impacts one sex [38–40]. The novel methods employed in this study went farther than measures taken at the forearm and hand midpoints and resulted in uniquely granular data to prevent, treat, and rehabilitate wrist musculoskeletal disorders resulting from touch screen devices and their manual and digital counterparts [3, 4, 19, 22–24, 35].
The angles and ROM measured in this study are not all extremes of wrist motion [19, 41]. Constrained motion and non-neutral position contribute to device-associated musculoskeletal disorders [4, 14, 42]. Repetitive, constrained wrist motion can result in increased upper limb antagonist muscle tension that contributes to reduced range of motion [33, 43]. The lower minimum medial extension angle and maximum medial extension and ROM for texting versus typing, and the lower maximum medial extension and lateral extension ROM for cell phone versus manual calculator use are consistent with constrained motion. Minimum angles provide information about constrained motion wrist motion beyond that captured by differences among maximum angles and may further understanding of wrist pain and injury.
Differences in wrist deviation and flexion-extension vary between sexes and hands [29]. Better dominant hand manual dexterity and greater nondominant hand non-instructive motion are typical, and dominant hand accuracy becomes more evident with task precision requirements [27, 28, 30, 44, 45]. Broadly speaking, sex and hand differences became evident during tasks in this investigation that required the most accuracy, including manual calculator use. Differences between sexes in maximum extension and ROM during the activity were both larger than reported differences in wrist flexion-extension ROM of large and small hands during piano playing [46]. Distinct radiocapitate kinematics in the female wrist are currently thought to be the reason for sex differences [41, 47, 48]. Smaller hand size can result in larger wrist ROM for an activity, and female hands are typically smaller than male [46, 49]. Differences between male and female dominant and nondominant hand accuracy and strength, including during digital device use have been confirmed [29, 47, 50]. Additionally, it is likely that personal experience like sports, instrument use, and strenuous manual tasks influence device use. Individuals with left-dominant hands often use their right hand for hand-specific devices and therefore may have more experience using their nondominant hand. Specific differences between dominant and nondominant hand use among sexes is beyond the scope of this study; however, the findings indicate important differences for sex and hand-specific device customization [28].
Limitations
Results should be limited to the comparisons here within study limitations. Markers were on bony landmarks where subcutaneous tissue was minimal, so skin motion was minimized but not obviated. The markers and marker boxes attached to the forearm could have affected normal wrist motion of participants, and the effects might have varied among individuals. Task order was not randomized, though 10–15 minutes between tasks should minimize carryover effects. Due to busy medical trainee schedules, it was not possible to repeat tasks on different days to test repeatability. The small participant population, medical trainees in an age range with high wrist ROM, though consistent with comparable studies, may limit generalizability of study findings [24, 32, 41, 47, 51]. Pronation and supination that impact 3D angle measures were not included in the 2D angle measures [29].
Conclusions
New information from this study that examined medial and lateral wrist motion during use of touch screen devices and digital and manual counterparts confirms distinct wrist motion between dominant and non-dominant hands that varies between male and female users. Maximum and minimum joint angles provide added information that may expand understanding of musculoskeletal disorders associated with the devices evaluated. Methods and results specific to wrist surface and maximum and minimum motion may also provide a platform for future studies. Taken together, results confirm that sex and handedness should guide recommendations for digital and manual device design and use to optimize performance and reduce injury.
References
- 1. Llopis E, Restrepo R, Kassarjian A, Cerezal L. Overuse Injuries of the Wrist. Radiol Clin North Am. 2019;57(5):957–76. Epub 2019/07/29. pmid:31351544.
- 2. Toosi KK, Hogaboom NS, Oyster ML, Boninger ML. Computer keyboarding biomechanics and acute changes in median nerve indicative of carpal tunnel syndrome. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon). 2015;30(6):546–50. Epub 2015/05/03. pmid:25933812.
- 3. Rempel DM, Keir PJ, Bach JM. Effect of wrist posture on carpal tunnel pressure while typing. J Orthop Res. 2008;26(9):1269–73. Epub 2008/04/03. pmid:18383144; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2649727.
- 4. Coppola SM, Lin MYC, Schilkowsky J, Arezes PM, Dennerlein JT. Tablet form factors and swipe gesture designs affect thumb biomechanics and performance during two-handed use. Appl Ergon. 20180112 ed2018. p. 40–6.
- 5. Chung JE, Choi SA, Kim KT, Yee J, Kim JH, Seong JW, et al. Smartphone addiction risk and daytime sleepiness in Korean adolescents. J Paediatr Child Health. 2018;54(7):800–6. Epub 2018/04/08. pmid:29626363.
- 6. Parasuraman S, Sam AT, Yee SWK, Chuon BLC, Ren LY. Smartphone usage and increased risk of mobile phone addiction: A concurrent study. International journal of pharmaceutical investigation. 2017;7(3):125–31. Epub 2017/12/01. pmid:29184824; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5680647.
- 7. Tegtmeier P. A scoping review on smart mobile devices and physical strain. Work (Reading, Mass). 2018;59(2):273–83. Epub 2018/01/23. pmid:29355129.
- 8. Atroshi I, Gummesson C, Ornstein E, Johnsson R, Ranstam J. Carpal tunnel syndrome and keyboard use at work: a population-based study. Arthritis and rheumatism. 2007;56(11):3620–5. Epub 2007/10/31. pmid:17968917.
- 9. Woo HC, White P, Ng HK, Lai CW. Development of Kinematic Graphs of Median Nerve during Active Finger Motion: Implications of Smartphone Use. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158455. Epub 2016/07/02. pmid:27367447; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4930216.
- 10. Ming Z, Pietikainen S, Hanninen O. Excessive texting in pathophysiology of first carpometacarpal joint arthritis. Pathophysiology. 2006;13(4):269–70. Epub 2006/10/20. pmid:17049823.
- 11. Xie Y, Szeto GP, Dai J, Madeleine P. A comparison of muscle activity in using touchscreen smartphone among young people with and without chronic neck-shoulder pain. Ergonomics. 2016;59(1):61–72. Epub 2015/07/29. pmid:26218600.
- 12. Gilman L, Cage DN, Horn A, Bishop F, Klam WP, Doan AP. Tendon rupture associated with excessive smartphone gaming. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(6):1048–9. Epub 2015/04/14. pmid:25868006.
- 13. Toh SH, Coenen P, Howie EK, Straker LM. The associations of mobile touch screen device use with musculoskeletal symptoms and exposures: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0181220. Epub 2017/08/09. pmid:28787453; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5546699.
- 14. Gold JE, Driban JB, Thomas N, Chakravarty T, Channell V, Komaroff E. Postures, typing strategies, and gender differences in mobile device usage: an observational study. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(2):408–12. Epub 2011/07/19. pmid:21764031.
- 15. Hillstrom HJ, Garg R, Kraszewski A, Lenhoff M, Carter T, Backus SI, et al. Development of an anatomical wrist joint coordinate system to quantify motion during functional tasks. J Appl Biomech. 2014;30(4):586–93. Epub 2014/03/13. pmid:24615208.
- 16. Rao SS, Bontrager EL, Gronley JK, Newsam CJ, Perry J. Three-dimensional kinematics of wheelchair propulsion. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng. 1996;4(3):152–60. Epub 1996/09/01. pmid:8800218.
- 17. Wu G, van der Helm FC, Veeger HE, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, et al. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion—Part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech. 2005;38(5):981–92. Epub 2005/04/23. pmid:15844264.
- 18. Levanon Y, Gefen A, Lerman Y, Givon U, Ratzon NZ. Validity and reliability of upper extremity three-dimensional kinematics during a typing task. Gait Posture. 2010;32(4):469–74. Epub 2010/08/04. pmid:20678936.
- 19. Gates DH, Walters LS, Cowley J, Wilken JM, Resnik L. Range of Motion Requirements for Upper-Limb Activities of Daily Living. Am J Occup Ther. 2016;70(1):7001350010p1-p10. Epub 2015/12/29. pmid:26709433; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4690598.
- 20. Akinnola OO, Vardakastani V, Kedgley AE. Development of a clinically adoptable joint coordinate system for the wrist. J Biomech. 2021/02/15 ed2021. p. 110291. pmid:33582599
- 21. Reissner L, Fischer G, List R, Taylor WR, Giovanoli P, Calcagni M. Minimal detectable difference of the finger and wrist range of motion: comparison of goniometry and 3D motion analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):173. Epub 2019/06/12. pmid:31182129; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6558857.
- 22. Murgia A, Kyberd P, Barnhill T. The use of kinematic and parametric information to highlight lack of movement and compensation in the upper extremities during activities of daily living. Gait Posture. 2010;31(3):300–6. Epub 2009/12/26. pmid:20034798.
- 23. Macedo LG, Magee DJ. Differences in range of motion between dominant and nondominant sides of upper and lower extremities. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(8):577–82. Epub 2008/11/06. pmid:18984240.
- 24. Chung MJ, Wang MJJ. The effect of age and gender on joint range of motion of worker population in Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2009;39(4):596–600. WOS:000267114700004.
- 25. Akhbari B, Moore DC, Laidlaw DH, Weiss AC, Akelman E, Wolfe SW, et al. Predicting Carpal Bone Kinematics Using an Expanded Digital Database of Wrist Carpal Bone Anatomy and Kinematics. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(12):2661–70. Epub 2019/08/06. pmid:31378991; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7376386.
- 26. Brigstocke G, Hearnden A, Holt CA, Whatling G. The functional range of movement of the human wrist. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2013;38(5):554–6. Epub 2012/08/25. pmid:22918884.
- 27. Srinivasan GA, Embar T, Sainburg R. Interlimb differences in coordination of rapid wrist/forearm movements. Exp Brain Res. 2020;238(3):713–25. Epub 2020/02/16. pmid:32060564; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7141791.
- 28. Park S, Yang Y. 3D Motion Analysis Comparison of the Dominant Hand Wrist Flexion during Writing. Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2012;24(10):1013–5. WOS:000320683600017.
- 29. Fan S, Cepek J, Symonette C, Ross D, Chinchalkar S, Grant A. Variation of Grip Strength and Wrist Range of Motion with Forearm Rotation in Healthy Young Volunteers Aged 23 to 30. J Hand Microsurg. 2019;11(2):88–93. Epub 2019/08/16. pmid:31413492; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6692155.
- 30. Sainburg RL, Kalakanis D. Differences in control of limb dynamics during dominant and nondominant arm reaching. J Neurophysiol. 2000;83(5):2661–75. Epub 2000/05/11. pmid:10805666.
- 31. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9(1):97–113. pmid:5146491.
- 32. Schweiger D, Stone R, Genschel U. Nondominant hand computer mouse training and the bilateral transfer effect to the dominant hand. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):4211. pmid:33603055
- 33. Burgess RA, Thompson RT, Rollman GB. The effect of forearm posture on wrist flexion in computer workers with chronic upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2008/04/15 ed2008. p. 47. pmid:18405370
- 34. Estill CF, Kroemer KH. Evaluation of supermarket bagging using a wrist motion monitor. Hum Factors. 1998;40(4):624–32. Epub 1999/02/12. pmid:9974233.
- 35. Gustafsson E, Coenen P, Campbell A, Straker L. Texting with touchscreen and keypad phones—A comparison of thumb kinematics, upper limb muscle activity, exertion, discomfort, and performance. Appl Ergon [Internet]. 2018 Jul; 70:[232–9 pp.]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29866313.
- 36. Kietrys DM, Gerg MJ, Dropkin J, Gold JE. Mobile input device type, texting style and screen size influence upper extremity and trapezius muscle activity, and cervical posture while texting. Appl Ergon [Internet]. 2015 Sep; 50:[98–104 pp.]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25959323.
- 37. Choi YS, Lee YH, Kim S, Cho HW, Song HT, Suh JS. Four-dimensional real-time cine images of wrist joint kinematics using dual source CT with minimal time increment scanning. Yonsei Med J. 2013;54(4):1026–32. Epub 2013/05/28. pmid:23709441; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3663247.
- 38. Vezeridis PS, Yoshioka H, Han R, Blazar P. Ulnar-sided wrist pain. Part I: anatomy and physical examination. Skeletal Radiol. 2010;39(8):733–45. Epub 2009/09/02. pmid:19722104; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2895881.
- 39. Sauve PS, Rhee PC, Shin AY, Lindau T. Examination of the wrist: radial-sided wrist pain. The Journal of hand surgery. 2014;39(10):2089–92. Epub 2014/09/10. pmid:25200760.
- 40. Patel TJ, Beredjiklian PK, Matzon JL. Trapeziometacarpal joint arthritis. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2013;6(1):1–8. Epub 2012/12/18. pmid:23242976; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3702767.
- 41. Kitsoulis P, Paraskevas G, Iliou K, Kanavaros P, Marini A. Clinical study of the factors affecting radioulnar deviation of the wrist joint. BMC musculoskeletal disorders [Internet]. 2010 Jan 15 PMC2836282]; 11:[9 p.]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20078878.
- 42. Toh SH, Coenen P, Howie EK, Mukherjee S, Mackey DA, Straker LM. Mobile touch screen device use and associations with musculoskeletal symptoms and visual health in a nationally representative sample of Singaporean adolescents. Ergonomics. 2019;62(6):778–93. Epub 2018/12/24. pmid:30575442.
- 43. Barthel HR, Miller LS, Deardorff WW, Portenier R. Presentation and response of patients with upper extremity repetitive use syndrome to a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program: a retrospective review of 24 cases. Journal of hand therapy: official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists. 1998;11(3):191–9. Epub 1998/09/08. pmid:9730095.
- 44. Mathew J, Sarlegna FR, Bernier PM, Danion FR. Handedness Matters for Motor Control But Not for Prediction. eNeuro. 2019;6(3):ENEURO.0136-19.2019. Epub 2019/05/30. pmid:31138661; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6557034.
- 45. Wang YC, Magasi SR, Bohannon RW, Reuben DB, McCreath HE, Bubela DJ, et al. Assessing dexterity function: a comparison of two alternatives for the NIH Toolbox. Journal of hand therapy: official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists. 2011;24(4):313–20. Epub 2011/07/30. pmid:21798715; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3783205.
- 46. Lai KY, Wu SK, Jou IM, Hsu HM, Sea MJC, Kuo LC. Effects of hand span size and right-left hand side on the piano playing performances: Exploration of the potential risk factors with regard to piano-related musculoskeletal disorders. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics2015. p. 97–104.
- 47. Klum M, Wolf MB, Hahn P, Leclere FM, Bruckner T, Unglaub F. Normative data on wrist function. The Journal of hand surgery. 2012;37(10):2050–60. Epub 2012/09/11. pmid:22960029.
- 48. Rainbow MJ, Crisco JJ, Moore DC, Wolfe SW. Gender differences in capitate kinematics are eliminated after accounting for variation in carpal size. J Biomech Eng. 2008;130(4):041003. Epub 2008/07/08. pmid:18601445; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3259565.
- 49. Wu SW, Wu SF, Liang HW, Wu ZT, Huang S. Measuring factors affecting grip strength in a Taiwan Chinese population and a comparison with consolidated norms. Applied Ergonomics. 2009;40(4):811–5. WOS:000266185800031. pmid:18947819
- 50. Wahlstrom J, Svensson J, Hagberg M, Johnson PW. Differences between work methods and gender in computer mouse use. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2000;26(5):390–7. Epub 2000/12/05. pmid:11103837.
- 51. Hwang J, Jung MC. Age and sex differences in ranges of motion and motion patterns. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2015;21(2):173–86. Epub 2015/09/02. pmid:26323776.