2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2009.02.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A possible anatomical and biomechanical explanation of the 10% rule used in the clinical assessment of prehensile hand movements and handed dominance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
(45 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sahrmann (2002) suggested that greater muscle development and therefore muscle stiffness on the right side would limit lateral bending to the left. Certainly, right grip strength was greater for all groups, which would be expected for a right handed population ( Yielder et al, 2009 ) and grip strength was correlated with muscle mass ( Kallman et al, 1990 ). Nicolay and Walker (2005) speculated that the use of the dominant hand in daily activities may train muscle fibres towards the properties of fast-twitch fibres and more efficient control of intersegmental dynamics may also alter muscle development ( Bagesteiro and Sainburg, 2002 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Sahrmann (2002) suggested that greater muscle development and therefore muscle stiffness on the right side would limit lateral bending to the left. Certainly, right grip strength was greater for all groups, which would be expected for a right handed population ( Yielder et al, 2009 ) and grip strength was correlated with muscle mass ( Kallman et al, 1990 ). Nicolay and Walker (2005) speculated that the use of the dominant hand in daily activities may train muscle fibres towards the properties of fast-twitch fibres and more efficient control of intersegmental dynamics may also alter muscle development ( Bagesteiro and Sainburg, 2002 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…The results of our study are consistent with these previous studies. Despite numerous studies to quantify the differences between the strength of the dominant and non-dominant hand (Jarjour et al, 1997;Zverev and Kamadyaapa, 2001;Yielder et al, 2009), this "10% rule" has been controversial (Petersen et al, 1989). Therefore, our study also analyzed the non-linear association between HGS ratio and cognitive score to explore more accurate U-shaped correlations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The measurement protocol used the PRIMUS RS 701 tool (BTE Technologies, Hanover, MD, USA) [ 22 , 23 ], based on previous studies [ 24 , 25 ], where it is recommended to perform at least three different speeds between 30°–240°/s, and an increase of repetitions [ 26 ] as the evaluation speed increases. The isokinetic movements of each test (constant speeds) were performed continuously and without rest between flexion/extension or inversion/eversion movements.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%