Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 134, Issue 8, pp 1179–1188 | Cite as

Grip force monitoring on the hand: Manugraphy system versus Jamar dynamometer

  • Marion Mühldorfer-FodorEmail author
  • Steffen Ziegler
  • Christoph Harms
  • Julia Neumann
  • Alessandra Cristalli
  • Axel Kalpen
  • Günther Kundt
  • Thomas Mittlmeier
  • K. J. Prommersberger



For clinical grip force assessment, the Jamar dynamometer is a wide accepted tool. Users have to be aware that this method does not represent all grip efforts applied. The Manugraphy system is a tool that measure total grip force as well as identify load distribution patterns of the hand while gripping cylinders wrapped with calibrated capacitive matrix sensor mats. The aim of this study was to validate an assessment setting of the Manugraphy system for clinical use. Further, the relationship and difference between the Manugraphy system and the Jamar dynamometer were investigated.

Materials and methods

At two study centers, 152 healthy volunteers performed grip force tests with a digital Jamar dynamometer using handle positions 3 and 4 and the novel® Manugraphy system using two cylinders with circumferences of 150 and 200 mm. The subjects performed grip force testing with both devices on three different days. The intra- and inter-day variability for both methods was evaluated. To compare the values of both systems, the Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated.


The force values, as measured by the sensor matrix, were higher than those of the Jamar dynamometer. Analyses showed significant positive correlations between values obtained by the two measurement methods (p < 0.001). There was no significant inter-day variation for the 200-mm cylinder of the Manugraphy system. For the 150-mm cylinder, a significant variation was observed at center B, but not at A. Nevertheless, the fluctuation of the grip force values obtained with the Manugraphy system was equal or better than those obtained with the Jamar dynamometer.


The force values, obtained using the two systems, have a high correlation but are not directly comparable. Both systems allow valid and constant grip force measurement. As the sensor mat detects all forces applied perpendicularly to the cylinder surface, it characterizes grip force better than the Jamar dynamometer. In addition, information about load distribution of the hand is gained.


Dynamic force measurement Grip force Grip strength Jamar dynamometer Manugraphy system Sensor matrix Pressure sensor mat 



We thank Peter Seitz, who provided the technical setting, data acquisition, and analysis on behalf of novel® biomechanics laboratory. Two of the authors are employees of this laboratory. The study centers did not receive any financial support, nor was there a conflict of interest regarding the data analysis or manuscript writing. The clinical part of the study, the statistics, and manuscript preparation were performed within the scope of the duties of the involved public institutes without additional funding. The primary author did not receive any funding, grants, honoraria, any other form of recognition, nor compensation of any kind from a sponsor. Thanks to Susanne Rein, who supported us by preparing the graphs and by proofread the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Bear-Lehman J, Abreu BC (1989) Evaluating the hand: issues in reliability and validity. Phys Ther 69:1025–1033PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, Patel HP, Syddall H, Cooper C, Sayer AA (2011) A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing 40:423–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wimer B, Dong RG, Welcome DE, Warren C, McDowell TW (2009) Development of a new dynamometer for measuring grip strength applied on a cylindrical handle. Med Eng Phys 31:695–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McDowell TW, Wimer BM, Welcome DE, Warren C, Dong RG (2012) Effects of handle size and shape on measured grip strength. Int J Ind Ergon 42:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welcome DE, Rakheja S, Dong RG, Wu JZ, Schopper AW (2004) An investigation on the relationship between grip, push, and contact forces applied to a tool handle. Int J Ind Ergon 34:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amis AA (1987) Variation of finger forces in maximal isometric grasp tests on a range of cylinder diameters. J Biomed Eng 9:313–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seo NJ, Armstrong TJ (2008) Investigation of grip force, normal force, contact area, hand size, and handle size for cylindrical handles. Hum Factor 50:734–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aldien Y, Welcome D, Rakheja S, Dong RG, Boileau PE (2005) Contact pressure distribution at hand-handle interface: role of hand forces and handle size. Int J Ind Ergon 35:267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong RG, Wu JZ, Welcome DE, McDowell TW (2008) A new approach to characterize grip force applied to a cylindrical handle. Med Eng Phys 30:20–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pataky TC, Slota GP, Latash ML, Zatsiorsky VM (2012) Radial force distribution changes associated with tangential force production in cylindrical grasping, and the importance of anatomical registration. J Biomech 45:218–224CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Debeliso MA, McChesney JW, Murdock LE (2013) Grip norms and reliability of the hand grip ForceMap system. J Hand Surg Eur 38:1009–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kutz DF, Wolfel A, Timmann D, Kolb FP (2007) Detection of changes in grip forces on a sliding object. J Neurosci Methods 166:250–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polliack AA, Sieh RC, Craig DD, Landsberger S, McNeil DR, Ayyappa E (2000) Scientific validation of two commercial pressure sensor systems for prosthetic socket fit. Prosthet Orthot Int 24:63–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fess EE (1992) Grip strength. In: Casanova JS (ed) Clinical assessment recommendations, 2nd edn. American Society of Hand Therapists, Chicago, pp 41–45Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Driscoll SW, Horii E, Ness R, Cahalan TD, Richards RR, An KN (1992) The relationship between wrist position, grasp size, and grip strength. J Hand Surg Am 17:169–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinstock-Zlotnick G, Bear-Lehman J, Yu TY (2011) A test case: does the availability of visual feedback impact grip strength scores when using a digital dynamometer? J Hand Ther 24:266–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Volland G, Kashman N (1984) Reliability and validity of grip and pinch strength evaluations. J Hand Surg Am 9:222–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seo NJ, Shim JK, Engel AK, Enders LR (2011) Grip surface affects maximum pinch force. Hum Factors 53:740–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zatsiorsky VM, Gao F, Latash ML (2003) Prehension synergies: effects of object geometry and prescribed torques. Exp Brain Res 148:77–87CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solomon HY, Turvey MT, Burton G (1989) Gravitational and muscular variables in perceiving rod extent by wielding. Ecol Psychol 1:265–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee JW, Rim K (1991) Measurement of finger joint angles and maximum finger forces during cylinder grip activity. J Biomed Eng 13:152–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keir PJ, Wells RP, Ranney DA (1996) Passive properties of the forearm musculature with reference to hand and finger postures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 11:401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Young VL, Pin P, Kraemer BA, Gould RB, Nemergut L, Pellowski M (1989) Fluctuation in grip and pinch strength among normal subjects. J Hand Surg Am 14:125–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nitschke JE, McMeeken JM, Burry HC, Matyas TA (1999) When is a change a genuine change? A clinically meaningful interpretation of grip strength measurements in healthy and disabled women. J Hand Ther 12:25–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion Mühldorfer-Fodor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steffen Ziegler
    • 1
  • Christoph Harms
    • 2
  • Julia Neumann
    • 2
  • Alessandra Cristalli
    • 3
  • Axel Kalpen
    • 3
  • Günther Kundt
    • 4
  • Thomas Mittlmeier
    • 2
  • K. J. Prommersberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinic for Hand SurgeryRhön Klinikum AGBad Neustadt / SaaleGermany
  2. 2.Department of Trauma and Reconstructive SurgeryUniversity of RostockRostockGermany
  3. 3.Novel Biomechanics LaboratoryMunichGermany
  4. 4.Institute of Biostatistics and Informatics in Medicine and Ageing ResearchUniversity of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations