4.4 Article

Grip strength and endurance: Influences of anthropometric variation, hand dominance, and gender

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ergon.2005.01.007

关键词

grip strength; grip endurance; hand anthropometry; handedness; dynamometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of grip strength typically examine maximum force during a single repetition, but this type of exertion is relatively rare in the workplace, where tasks frequently involve repeated forceful dynamic grasping or prolonged static holding. This study examined grip strength and endurance in three experiments: single-repetition, 10-repetition, and 30-second static hold. The relationships between anthropometric variation and grip performance were assessed for 51 individuals. aged 18-33. Measurements of the forearm and hand were found to be better predictors of grip strength than were height and weight. The ability to predict strength was most accurate for the single-repetition, and then declined with increasing duration of the experiment. Compared to univariate measurements, multivariate analysis (principal components) slightly improved the ability to predict absolute grip force. In contrast to strength, anthropometric variation was completely unassociated with relative grip endurance (percent change in force production). While larger males produced greater average grip force than did females, no significant differences existed between the genders in measures of relative endurance. The dominant hand was significantly stronger than the opposite hand. but also fatigued more rapidly. This trend was more pronounced in females than in males. Relevance to industry: Grip strength and relative endurance may both contribute to the risk of work-related accidents and cumulative musculoskeletal injury. Because grip force and endurance are unrelated, ergonomists should consider which factor is most important and appropriate for their design and research goals. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据