Anatomy and Cell Biology

Korean Association of Anatomists (대한해부학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Biometric analysis hand parameters in young adults for prosthetic hand and ergonomic product applications

  • Gkionoul Nteli Chatzioglou (Department of Anatomy, Digital Imaging and 3D Modeling Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University) ;
  • Yelda Pinar (Department of Anatomy, Digital Imaging and 3D Modeling Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University) ;
  • Figen Govsa (Department of Anatomy, Digital Imaging and 3D Modeling Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine, Ege University)
  • Received : 2023.12.26
  • Accepted : 2024.01.10
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the superficial anatomy, kinesiology, and functions of the hand to reveal its morphometry and apply the findings in various fields such as prosthetic hand and protective hand support product design. We examined 51 young adults (32 females, 19 males) aged between 18-30. Hand photographs were taken, and measurements were conducted using ImageJ software. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between personal information and the parameters. The results of the measurements showed the average lengths of finger segments: thumb (49.5±5.5 mm), index finger (63.9±4.1 mm), middle finger (70.7±5.2 mm), ring finger (65.5±4.8 mm), and little finger (53.3±4.3 mm). Both females and males, the left index finger was measured longer than the right index finger. The right ring finger was found to be longer than the left in both sexes. Additionally, length differences between fingers in extended and maximally adducted positions were determined: thumb-index finger (56.1±6.2 mm), index-middle finger (10.7±4.1 mm), middle-ring finger (10.8±1.4 mm), and ring-little finger (25.6±2.7 mm). Other findings included the average radial natural angle (56.4°±10.5°), ulnar natural angle (23.4°±7.1°), radial deviation angle (65.2°±8.2°), ulnar deviation angle (51.2°±9.6°), and grasping/gripping angle (49.1°±5.8°). The average angles between fingers in maximum abduction positions were also measured: thumb-index finger (53.4°±6.5°), index-middle finger (17.2°±2.6°), middle-ring finger (14.3°±2.3°), and ring-little finger (32.1°±7.0°). The study examined the variability in the positioning of proximal interphalangeal joints during maximum metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal flexion, coinciding with maximum distal interphalangeal extension movements. The focal points of our observations were the asymmetrical and symmetrical arches formed by these joints. This study provides valuable hand parameters in young adults, which can be utilized in various applications such as prosthetic design, ergonomic product development, and hand-related research. The results highlight the significance of considering individual factors when assessing hand morphology and function.

Keywords

References

  1. Cardoso R, Szabo RM. Wrist anatomy and surgical approaches. Hand Clin 2010;26:1-19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2009.08.009
  2. Coelho LA, Gonzalez CLR. Growing into your hand: the developmental trajectory of the body model. Exp Brain Res 2022;240:135-45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-021-06241-2
  3. Leversedge FJ. Anatomy and pathomechanics of the thumb. Hand Clin 2008;24:219-29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hcl.2008.03.010
  4. van Nierop OA, van der Helm A, Overbeeke KJ, Djajadiningrat TJ. A natural human hand model. Vis Comput 2008;24:31-44.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-007-0176-x
  5. Inouye JM, Valero-Cuevas FJ. Anthropomorphic tendon-driven robotic hands can exceed human grasping capabilities following optimization. Int J Robotics Res 2014;33:694-705.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364913504247
  6. Chatzioglou G, Pinar Y. The biometric parameters of the hand surface at young adults. Paper presented at: National Anatomy Congress; 2017 Sep 25-27; Abant, Turkey. 
  7. Completo A, Nascimento A, Neto F. Total arthroplasty of basal thumb joint with Elektra prothesis: an in vitro analysis. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2016;41:930-8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193416659230
  8. Damert HG, Kober M, Mehling I. Custom-made wrist prothesis (uni-2™) in a patient with giant cell tumor of the distal radius: 10-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020;140:2109-14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03593-2
  9. Jones NF, Graham DJ. Radical resection of a recurrent giant cell tumor of the distal ulna and immediate reconstruction with a distal radio-ulnar joint implant arthroplasty. Hand (N Y) 2020;15:727-31.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.9b00942
  10. Lalchandani GR, Halvorson RT, Zhang AL, Lattanza LL, Immerman I. Patient outcomes and costs after isolated flexor tendon repairs of the hand. J Hand Ther 2022;35:590-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jht.2021.04.015
  11. Stival F, Michieletto S, Cognolato M, Pagello E, Muller H, Atzori M. A quantitative taxonomy of human hand grasps. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2019;16:28. 
  12. Wanamaker AB, Whelan LR, Farley J, Chaudhari AM. Biomechanical analysis of users of multi-articulating externally powered prostheses with and without their device. Prosthet Orthot Int 2019;43:618-28.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309364619871185
  13. Karacizmeli C, Cakir G, Tukel D. Robotic hand project. Paper presented at: 2014 22nd Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU); 2014 Apr 23-25; Trabzon, Turkey. 
  14. Werner D, Alawi SA. Four extremity amputation and bionic prosthesis supply after disseminated intravascular coagulation: a follow-up on functionality and quality of life after bionic prosthesis supply. World J Plast Surg 2019;8:146-62.  https://doi.org/10.29252/wjps.8.2.146
  15. Theyskens NC, Vandesande W. Dislocation in single-mobility versus dual-mobility trapezometacarpal joint prostheses. Hand (NY) 2022 Oct 8 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1177/15589447221124257 
  16. Roche AD, Bailey ZK, Gonzalez M, Vu PP, Chestek CA, Gates DH, Kemp SWP, Cederna PS, Ortiz-Catalan M, Aszmann OC. Upper limb prostheses: bridging the sensory gap. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2023;48:182-90. 
  17. Demers LAA, Gosselin C. Kinematic design of a planar and spherical mechanism for the abduction of the fingers of an anthropomorphic robotic hand. Paper presented at: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; 2011 May 9-13; Shanghai, China. p. 5350-6. 
  18. Matheson AB, Sinclair DC, Skene WG. The range and power of ulnar and radial deviation of the fingers. J Anat 1970;107:439-58. 
  19. Aguilar-Pereyra JF, Castillo-Castaneda E. Design of a reconfigurable robotic system for flexoextension fitted to hand fingers size. Appl Bionics Biomech 2016;2016:1712831. 
  20. Amundsen A, Rizzo M, Berger RA, Houdek MT, Frihagen F, Moran SL. Twenty-year experience with primary distal radioulnar joint arthroplasty from a single institution. J Hand Surg Am 2023;48:53-67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhsa.2022.02.014
  21. Spilman HW, Pinkston D. Relation of test positions to radial and ulnar deviation. Phys Ther 1969;49:837-44.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/49.8.837
  22. Lee J, Kunii TL. Model-based analysis of hand posture. IEEE Comp Gr Appl 1995;15:77-86.  https://doi.org/10.1109/38.403831
  23. Billard A, Kragic D. Trends and challenges in robot manipulation. Science 2019;364:eaat8414. 
  24. Lin J, Wu Y, Huang TS. Modeling the constraints of human hand motion. Paper presented at: Proceedings Workshop on Human Motion; 2000 Dec 7-8; Austin, TX, USA. p. 121-6. 
  25. Dutagaci H, Sankur B, Yoruk E. Comparative analysis of global hand appearance-based person recognition. J Electron Imaging 2008;17:011018. 
  26. Eksioglu M. Relative optimum grip span as a function of hand anthropometry. Int J Ind Ergon 2004;34:1-12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2004.01.007
  27. Lippa RA. Are 2D: 4D finger-length ratios related to sexual orientation? Yes for men, no for women. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003;85:179-88.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.179
  28. Metcalf CD, Notley SV, Chappell PH, Burridge JH, Yule VT. Validation and application of a computational model for wrist and hand movements using surface markers. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2008;55:1199-210.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2007.908087
  29. Baronio G, Harran S, Signoroni A. A critical analysis of a hand orthosis reverse engineering and 3D printing process. Appl Bionics Biomech 2016;2016:8347478. 
  30. Hu RX, Jia W, Zhang D, Gui J, Song LT. Hand shape recognition based on coherent distance shape contexts. Pattern Recognit 2012;45:3348-59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2012.02.018
  31. Li M, Zhuo Y, He B, Liang Z, Xu G, Xie J, Zhang S. A 3D-printed soft hand exoskeleton with finger abduction assistance. Paper presented at: 2019 16th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR); 2019 Jun 24-27; Jeju, Korea. p. 319-22. 
  32. Savic T, Pavesic N. Personal recognition based on an image of the palmar surface of the hand. Pattern Recognit 2007;40:3152-63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2007.03.005
  33. Park G, Kim S. Hand biometric recognition based on fused hand geometry and vascular patterns. Sensors (Basel) 2013;13:2895-910.  https://doi.org/10.3390/s130302895
  34. Pillai JK, Patel VM, Chellappa R, Ratha NK. Secure and robust iris recognition using random projections and sparse representations. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2011;33:1877-93.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2011.34
  35. Sandow MJ, McMahon M. Active mobilisation following single cross grasp four-strand flexor tenorrhaphy (Adelaide repair). J Hand Surg Eur Vol 2011;36:467-75.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1753193411405937
  36. Taner HA, Gozil R, Iseri E, Buru E, Bahcelioglu M. [A comparison of obsessive compulsive disorder, pervasive developmental disorder, and control groups in terms of 2D:4D ratio and finger lengths]. GMJ 2016;27:40-4. Turkish. 
  37. Onat P, Kan S, Nakkas EC, Eryilmaz T, Kadayifci EC. El boyutlarindan boy tahmininde sosyoekonomik yapinin etkisi. XV Student Symposium Working Group Presentations; 2013. 
  38. Ertugrul B, Otag I. [Relationship between sexually dimorphic body morphology and second-to-fourth digit ratio]. Insanbil Derg 2012;1:94-107. Turkish.