4.3 Article

Comparative morphology of the pollical distal phalanx

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
卷 121, 期 1, 页码 30-47

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.10192

关键词

flexor pollicis longus; sesamoid; distal phalangeal tuberosity; ungual pulp; tools

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [U42 RR15090-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional analysis of human pollical distal phalangeal (PDP) morphology is undertaken to establish a basis for the assessment of fossil hominid PDP morphology. Features that contribute to the effectiveness of grips involving the distal thumb and finger pulp areas include: 1) distal thumb interphalangeal joint morphology, facilitating PDP conjunct pronation with flexion; 2) differentiation of a proximal, mobile pulp region from a distal, stable pulp region, providing for firm precision pinch grips and precision handling of objects; and 3) asymmetric attachment of the flexor pollicis longus (FPL) tendon fibers, favoring PDP conjunct pronation. A proportionately larger size of the ulnar vs. radial ungual spine suggests differential loading intensity of the ulnar side of the proximal ungual pulp and supporting nail bed. Stresses at the distal interphalangeal joint are indicated by the presence of a sesamoid bone within the volar (palmar) plate, which also increases the length of the flexor pollicis longus tendon moment arm. Dissections of specimens from six nonhuman primate genera indicate that these human features are shared variably with individuals in other species, although the full pattern of features appears to be distinctively human. Humans share variably with these other species all metric relationships examined here. The new data identify a need to systematically review long-standing assumptions regarding the range of precision and power manipulative capabilities that might reasonably be inferred from morphology of the distal phalangeal tuberosity and from the FPL tendon insertion site on the PDP. (C) 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.3
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