Age-related and gender-related differences on hand dexterity in healthy and sports inactive older adults: a cross-sectional study
- Open Access
- 10.01.2026
- Original Contributions
Abstract
Introduction
Advancements in healthcare and healthy aging have led to increased life expectancy in Germany, reshaping demographic structures and also the image of aging today [6]. Older people are more active and resilient than before, with notable improvements in quality of life and independence [14]. The promotion and development of motor skills is essential for daily functioning, as age-related declines in reaction speed, balance, strength, endurance and mobility accelerate from age 70 years onwards [14, 16]. While physical training can mitigate gross motor decline [3, 14, 18], little is known about the preservation of fine motor coordination, which is crucial for independent activities such as operating technical devices, handwriting or cooking [13, 14].
A number of studies have documented that hand dexterity, a specific form of eye-hand coordination, deteriorates with age and correlates moderately to strongly with grip strength [14, 16]. Some investigations have also reported gender differences in tasks such as pin insertion and tapping across age groups (50–60, 61–70 and 70+ years), finding slower motor speed in women for certain subtests, although results have been inconsistent and the role of gender in age-related decline remains unclear [22].
Anzeige
Age-related impairments reflect both neural and tendomuscular changes, such as reduced sensory feedback, slower information processing and diminished joint mobility, all of which compromise movement speed and accuracy [7, 20, 24]. Movements involving the hand and fingers demand higher levels of neural activity in the brain compared to gross motor movements of the arms or legs. These tasks require significant cognitive, coordinative and attentional resources [12]. While precision tasks can be evaluated qualitatively and independently of conditional (energetic) abilities, tasks performed under time constraints demand conditional abilities in addition to coordination [2, 7]. Moreover, under time pressure, older adults tend to trade speed for precision (speed-accuracy trade-off) but practice on specific tasks can help preserve motor speed by reinforcing neural pathways [8].
Despite evidence linking grip strength to manual dexterity [17], most prior work has examined younger or clinical populations, leaving a gap in our understanding of healthy but physically inactive seniors [9]. Given the growing population of older adults nationally and internationally, particularly those who are healthy but not regularly active in sports, this study aims to explore gender-related and age-related differences in hand dexterity performance among individuals aged 60–79 years [5, 23]. Additionally, it seeks to determine whether and to what extent similar differences exist in arm curl strength in older adults as there is evidence that grip strength influences coordination [14, 16].
Methods
Study design
In this cross-sectional study, 225 healthy and sports inactive seniors aged 60–84 years participated as part of the movement promotion for healthy and sports inactive seniors 60+ project [21]. The analyses characterize associations among age, gender, dexterity, and strength but do not permit causal inference. Measurements were conducted from February 2022 to June 2024, with all participants completing motor tests in the same order. The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki, with approval from the Ethics Committee of the Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg (Germany) (registration number: 3/22). Trial registration number: DRKS00030853 (14 December 2022). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and health data were collected via a medical history form. The study follows STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies.
Sample description
Subjects were recruited through local newspaper advertisements. Eligibility was assessed via telephone based on age (60+ years) and sporting inactivity, verified using the Physical Activity, Exercise, and Sport Questionnaire (BSA-F) [4]. In accordance with the ethical guidelines of the funding agency, the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds, all participants meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Randomization was not applied to ensure that all eligible individuals could participate. Only individuals who had previously exercised regularly or were unable to provide medical clearance due to severe functional limitations (e.g., stroke, heart attack) were excluded.
Anzeige
An a priori power analysis using G*Power (version 3.1.9.7, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany) for a two-factorial ANOVA (2 groups in factor sexes and 4 groups in factor age α = 0.05, 1‑β = 0.80, f = 0.25) indicated a sample size of 179 participants. The final sample consisted of 198 older adults (61 males, 137 females, mean age = 68.2 ± 4.7 years) from an initial 225 participants. Due to the limited sample size, results from participants aged 80–84 years (n = 11) and left-handed/ambidextrous individuals (n = 16) were excluded. Handedness was documented in advance as part of the MLS protocol, and several studies have shown that handedness preference can influence motor performance, rendering these individuals not directly comparable to right-handed participants [10]. The sample was divided into the following age groups: 60–64 years (AG1), 65–69 years (AG2), 70–74 years (AG3) and 75–79 years (AG4) (Table 1).
Table 1
Sample characteristics in relation to age
Sex | Age group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
60–64 years (AG1) | 65–69 years (AG2) | 70–74 years (AG3) | 75–79 years (AG4) | Total | |
Male | 13 (21%) | 23 (38%) | 17 (28%) | 8 (13%) | 61 (100%) |
Female | 31 (23%) | 56 (41%) | 32 (23%) | 18 (13%) | 137 (100%) |
Total | 44 | 79 | 49 | 26 | 198 |
Across all age groups, around 20% reported sporting inactivity since the COVID-19 pandemic or for over 5, 10, or 20 years, or had never been regularly active. At the time of testing 45% of AG1 and 10% of AG2 participants were still employed.
Instruments and procedure
This study examined the eye-hand coordination of the dominant hand, which was required to concurrently fulfil the conditions of coordination under time pressure and, in certain instances, coordination under precision pressure. Therefore, the motor performance series (MLS) by Schoppe was used, which includes the following subtests: tapping to assess motor speed under low precision demands in number of repetitions (n), inserting long and short pins to analyze motor speed in tasks requiring medium to high precision based on time (s), and line tracking to evaluate fine motor performance under high precision and time pressure based on an error-free time factor [16]. In addition to the MLS, the hand dynamometer was used to determine maximum grip strength in kg and the biceps curl test was employed to assess muscular endurance based on the number of repetitions completed (n) [19].
Statistical data analysis
The data were analyzed using SPSS (version 28, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). Given the presence of a normal distribution, the two-factorial ANOVA with a Dunn-Bonferroni correction was used as a parametric method to compare group means (M) between men and women and in the age group comparison. A significance level of α = 0.05 was chosen. Pearson’s correlation was selected to analyze the relationship between the group means. Cohen’s classification was used to interpret the effect sizes of the ANOVA and post hoc tests. There is a small effect at η2 ≥ 0.01 / ƒ ≥ 0.1, a medium effect at η2 ≥ 0.06 / ƒ ≥ 0.25 and a large effect at η2 ≥ 0.14 / ƒ ≥ 0.4.
Results
Overall, AG1 of both sexes achieved the highest scores across all tasks (Table 2). Women’s AG4 showed the weakest performance in most tests. In men, AG3 with the lowest grip strength had the greatest difficulty inserting pins, while AG4 with the lowest endurance performed worst in tapping and line tracking.
Table 2
Overview of test results
Test Sample | Tapping | Inserting long pins | Inserting short pins | Line tracking | Hand dynamometer | Biceps curls | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | M ± SD (n) ↑ | M ± SD (s) ↓ | M ± SD (s) ↓ | M ± SD (s) ↑ | M ± SD (kg) ↑ | M ± SD (n) ↑ | |
Male | |||||||
AG1 | 13 | 190.54 ± 16.7 | 40.46 ± 4.6 | 55 ± 9.72 | 0.7 ± 0.51 | 42.54 ± 6.56 | 24.62 ± 5.3 |
AG2 | 23 | 183.3 ± 24.7 | 44.02 ± 7 | 56.7 ± 16.2 | 0.8 ± 0.5 | 37.54 ± 8.24 | 23.3 ± 5.6 |
AG3 | 17 | 180 ± 25.1 | 44.75 ± 7.7 | 57.7 ± 13.4 | 0.83 ± 0.5 | 35.93 ± 6.32 | 23.59 ± 6 |
AG4 | 8 | 177.9 ± 19.2 | 43.12 ± 5.3 | 51.7 ± 4.4 | 0.7 ± 0.54 | 37.93 ± 3.96 | 21.38 ± 3.2 |
Female | |||||||
AG1 | 31 | 195.06 ± 16 | 38.53 ± 4.3 | 46.6 ± 8.35 | 1.0 ± 0.56 | 25.83 ± 3.9 | 25.29 ± 5 |
AG2 | 56 | 182.45 ± 21.5 | 41.95 ± 4.9 | 49.7 ± 9.2 | 0.96 ± 0.6 | 24.81 ± 4.56 | 22.62 ± 3.8 |
AG3 | 32 | 185.31 ± 18 | 41.79 ± 5.8 | 54.1 ± 19.2 | 0.9 ± 0.68 | 24.17 ± 3.98 | 22.44 ± 4.3 |
AG4 | 18 | 174.4 ± 19.6 | 42.51 ± 4.2 | 53.26 ± 7.3 | 0.6 ± 0.48 | 24.14 ± 3.97 | 24.28 ± 4.9 |
Performance differences between sexes were evident within age groups, particularly in grip strength. Age-related declines were most pronounced between the youngest group (60–64 years) and older groups. Although ANOVA revealed no significant interaction effects, the main effects of age and sex are discussed later.
Gender-based differences in fine motor skills
Overall, women outperformed men in all coordination tasks (tapping, pin insertion, line tracing), significant sex differences emerged only in the pin insertion task. No age-related decline in coordination was observed among men, whereas women showed a marked decline from age 65 years. Women in AG1 demonstrated the highest fine motor performance, which declined with age, aligning with male performance in older groups (Table 3).
Table 3
Age-related and gender-related differences in fine motor skills
Task | Significance | Effect size η2 | Post hoc comparisons |
|---|---|---|---|
Tapping | |||
Sex | F (1, 190) = 0.167; p = 0.683 | 0.001 | w AG1—w AG2 (p = 0.038) w AG1—w AG4 (p = 0.005) |
AG | F (3, 190) = 3.51; p = 0.016 | 0.052 | |
Sex*AG | F (3, 190) = 0.376; p = 0.770 | 0.006 | |
Inserting long pins | |||
Sex | F (1, 190) = 4.356; p = 0.038 | 0.022 | m/w AG1—m/w AG2 (p = 0.006) m/w AG1— m/w AG3 (p = 0.008) |
AG | F (3, 190) = 4.077; p = 0.008 | 0.060 | |
Sex*AG | F (3, 190) = 0.23; p = 0.875 | 0.004 | w AG1—w AG2 (p = 0.034) |
Inserting short pins | |||
Sex | F (1, 190) = 4.52; p = 0.035 | 0.023 | m AG1—w AG1 (p = 0.041) m AG2—w AG2 (p = 0.023) |
AG | F (3, 190) = 1.19; p = 0.314 | 0.018 | |
Sex*AG | F (3, 190) = 0.94; p = 0.422 | 0.015 | |
Line tracing | |||
Sex | F (1, 190) = 1.383; p = 0.241 | 0.007 | – |
AG | F (3, 190) = 0.858; p = 0.464 | 0.013 | |
Sex*AG | F (3, 190) = 0.858; p = 0.464 | 0.013 | |
Tapping results
There is neither a significant difference in motor speed between men and women, nor is there an age-related loss of motor speed in men. Significant differences in the age factor calculated in the ANOVA refers to the significant speed deviations of the AG1 females compared to the two age groups AG2 and AG4 with slight effect (Cohen’s ƒ = 0.23).
Anzeige
Results inserting long and short pins
Most significant differences were found in the accomplishment of inserting long and short pins. Speed performance differed for the short pins regarding the gender factor and the long pins regarding the age and gender factors. For the short pins there was a significant difference between the two sexes in the total duration of AG1 and AG2 with a small effect (ƒ = 0.15). In the overall sample, women were significantly faster than men at inserting the long pins, even though this small effect of ƒ = 0.15 is not associated with any particular age group. Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed age-related performance declines from AG1 to AG2 and AG1 to AG3 particularly among women (ƒ = 0.25).
Results line tracking
Although women performed better than men in the coordinated movement task with high precision pressure, ANOVA revealed no significant differences in gender or age groups; however, when considering the number of errors, error duration, and total time, women performed more accurately with fewer errors (F (1, 190) = 7314; p = 0.007; η2 = 0.037).
Gender-based strength differences
Men exhibited significantly higher grip strength than women, with gender differences most pronounced in maximum strength across all age groups (ƒ = 1.16). A significant age-related strength decline was observed, mainly affecting men in AG1 compared to AG2 and AG3 (ƒ = 0.27); however, men did not outperform women in upper limb strength endurance, as no gender differences were found in the biceps curl test. No significant age-related differences in motor ability were observed for either sex (Table 4).
Table 4
Age-related and gender-related differences in strength performance
Task | Significance | Effect size η2 | Post hoc comparisons |
|---|---|---|---|
Hand dynamometer | |||
Sex | F (1, 190) = 254.09; p < 0.001 | 0.572 | m—w (p < 0.001) |
AG | F (3, 190) = 4.56; p = 0.004 | 0.067 | m AG1—m AG2 (p = 0.037) m AG1—m AG3 (p = 0.004) |
Sex*AG | F (3, 190) = 1.7; p = 0.168 | 0.026 | |
Biceps curl test | |||
Sex | F (1, 190) = 0.308; p = 0.580 | 0.002 | – |
AG | F (3, 190) = 1.74; p = 0.160 | 0.027 | |
Sex*AG | F (3, 190) = 1.11; p = 0.346 | 0.017 | |
Discussion
This study explored gender-related and age-related differences in hand dexterity to emphasize the need for research on older adults’ fine motor skills. Effect sizes for the significant findings were generally small to moderate, which suggests that while the observed differences are statistically significant, their clinical relevance may be limited and should be interpreted with caution. Women outperformed men in high-precision tasks, particularly in short pin insertion for especially AG1 and AG2 and long pin insertion tasks for total male and female, while no differences emerged in tasks involving motor speed (tapping) or hand-eye coordination with a high demand on precision (line tracking). After age 65 years, women’s performance in low-precision and moderate-precision tasks declined, whereas men maintained coordination but experienced significant grip strength loss. While Sebastjan et al. [22] reported gender gaps in motor speed, our results align with Kraus et al. [12], who also found no gender differences among healthy right-handed seniors aged 51.2 ± 18.5 years in their age groups for tracking lines, tapping, or inserting long pins.
Anzeige
Gender-related differences
Gender differences in hand dexterity appear primarily in tasks requiring fine finger movements, such as inserting short pins, potentially due to men’s larger finger size and reduced haptic sensitivity [1]. Greater hand strength in men may also hinder the application of minimal force for precise tasks [24]. In contrast, no significant gender differences were observed in motor speed (tapping) or tasks involving controlled hand-arm movements with continuous visual feedback, such as line tracing.
Age-related decline in strength and coordination abilities
Both sexes show age-related grip strength decline, more pronounced in men due to higher initial levels [14, 16]. Significant maximum grip strength differences were observed between men’s AG1 to AG2 and AG3. In contrast, women showed less strength decline but greater losses in coordination with age. From age 65 years female hand dexterity and motor speed under moderate precision demands decreased, approaching male levels. The data suggest that men retain strength and women coordination longer, potentially due to occupational routines. According to Lehmann et al. [12] repeated tasks strengthen neural pathways, which may explain higher dexterity in working women aged 60–64 years and declines post-retirement.
Differences in age-related performance in precision tasks
In contrast to Hoogendam et al. [8], who reported declines in fine motor precision from age 75 years, no significant age-related deterioration was observed in line tracking performance, suggesting that precision may decline later than motor speed. Furthermore, no evidence was found for a speed-accuracy trade-off [22], as reduced motor speed with age (tapping) did not correspond with improved precision (errors or error duration). These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the younger-skewed sample and limited representation of older age groups. Moreover, the unequal group sizes, particularly the underrepresentation of participants in the oldest age group, may have reduced the statistical power of the ANOVA and limited the generalizability of group comparisons. In addition, participants were volunteers recruited through advertisements in local newspapers and therefore may represent a more health-conscious, motivated or better educated subset than the broader older population.
Relation between strength abilities and hand dexterity
Clarifying the link between grip strength, endurance and dexterity remains difficult. If grip strength directly improved coordination, men would outperform women, but results were mixed. Comparable performance in tapping and long-pin insertion suggests a partial connection. Women’s strength endurance may support tasks involving prolonged arm elevation. A basic level of endurance seems beneficial for arm-hand coordination. Whether strength or age more strongly determines dexterity warrants further investigation. Martin et al. [16] suggest that age predicts precision, whereas grip strength is more closely linked to motor speed in visuomotor tasks. Potential confounding factors, such as education, socioeconomic status, occupational history and cognitive function, may have influenced the observed associations reported here; these variables were not included in our analyses.
Anzeige
Conclusion
Hand dexterity declines with age in both sexes but follows different patterns: women show a marked drop in fine coordination (especially tasks like pin insertion) from age 65 years, while men maintain coordination but experience significant loss of grip strength. Gender differences in dexterity are most evident in small object tasks, less so in motor speed. These findings highlight the need for targeted interventions to preserve fine motor skills and clarify how age, strength and coordination interact; they also provide normative benchmarks for studying hand function in older adults with cognitive impairment.
Practical conclusion
-
Hand dexterity should be trained independently of hand strength.
-
Motor speed and also the ability to perform movement tasks with precision should be maintained through training in old age.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
A. Schumacher, M. Krumpolt, A. Prinz, D. Rahil, L. Sannemann and K. Witte declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent to publication
All authors agree with the publication process.
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg (registration number: 3/22). Trial registration number (DRKS 00030853) and date of registration (14 December 2022). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.