AgingNCT03803566
Age-independent Decline in Manual Dexterity of Middle-aged and Older Adults
A study testing Pegboard practice in people with Aging, run by University of Colorado, Boulder at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The objective of the clinical trial is to evaluate the mediating influence of force control on the pegboard times of adults (50-89 years) who are stratified into groups of faster and slower pegboard times. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 50 to 89 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Aging
- What is being tested?
- Pegboard practice
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Aug 2025to Jul 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 50 to 89 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Able to read, write, and speak English
- Able to arrange transportation to the Boulder campus
Who cannot join
- Cognitive impairment
- Major psychiatric condition
- Unstable depressive disorder
- Progressive neurological, muscular, cardiovascular, or skeletal disorder
- Chronic pain condition
- Currently taking medication known to influence neuromuscular function
- Recent hospitalization
- Unable to attend 12 practice sessions in 6 weeks
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Colorado Boulder
Boulder, Colorado, 80309
About this study
The objective of the clinical trial is to evaluate the mediating influence of force control on the pegboard times of adults (50-89 years) who are stratified into groups of faster and slower pegboard times. The hypothesis is that practice of either a pegboard test or a force-control task will reduce pegboard times, but the decrease will be greater and less similar after the two practice interventions for the slower group of participants. The outcomes are expected to demonstrate that force control is a modifiable mediator of pegboard times for this cohort, but the effect will be stronger for the group with faster pegboard times.
Read the detailed description
The study will involve a randomized, cross-over design with a one-week washout between arms. The two arms (3 weeks each) will comprise practice of the grooved pegboard test and practice of steady contractions while lifting and lowering light loads with a hand muscle. Randomization into practice order will be accomplished with a block approach (block size = 4) for each of the two groups. The outcome assessors will be blinded to practice order. The outcomes will comprise three tests of manual dexterity and the measurement of force control during submaximal contractions. The outcomes will be obtained before and after the six sessions in each practice arm.
- Conditions
- Aging
- Being tested
- Pegboard practice, Force control practice
- Keywords
- Manual dexterity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Pegboard practiceOther
Practice of the grooved pegboard test
Force control practiceOther
Practice performing steady muscle contractions
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Faster | Experimental | This group will comprise participants who complete the grooved pegboard test at baseline with a time of less than 71 seconds. One half of the members in this group will perform the two interventions in the order of pegboard practice and then force control practice, whereas the other half of the group will perform the two practice interventions in the opposite order. Receives: Other: Pegboard practice; Other: Force control practice |
| Slower | Experimental | This group will comprise participants who complete the grooved pegboard test at baseline with a time of greater than 70 seconds. One half of the members in this group will perform the two interventions in the order of pegboard practice and then force control practice, whereas the other half of the group will perform the two practice interventions in the opposite order. Receives: Other: Pegboard practice; Other: Force control practice |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Grooved pegboard test
Time to complete the test as quickly as possible
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
9-hole pegboard test
Time to complete the test as quickly as possible
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Jebsen Hand Function test
Time to complete the test as quickly as possible
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Force control
The coefficient of variation for force when subjects exert a constant submaximal force
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Secondary outcomes (5)
EMG amplitude
Absolute amplitude of the electromyographic (EMG) signal for the involved muscles during the steady contractions
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
MVC force
The peak force exerted during a maximal isometric contractions
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
1-RM load
The maximal weight that can be lifted once
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Index finger acceleration
The average standard deviation of index finger acceleration in the abduction-adduction plane when a light load is being lifted and lowered during the practice intervention
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Motor unit discharge rates
The discharge times of action potentials by motor units during the steady submaximal contractions
Measured: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Jan 2019
- Study startAug 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completionNov 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionJul 2026 (estimated)
Why it stopped: The grant application has not been approved
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for AgingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Colorado, Boulder
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Roger Enoka, University of Colorado, Boulder
- Investigators
- Roger Enoka, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Colorado, Boulder
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03803566
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 18-0269
- Status last verified
- Nov 2021
- First submitted
- 10 Jan 2019
- Last updated
- 16 Nov 2021
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Nov 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Age-independent Decline in Manual Dexterity of Middle-aged and Older Adults
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03803566
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 18-0269
- Conditions
- Aging
- Keywords
- Manual dexterity
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: The grant application has not been approved
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Colorado, BoulderUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Nov 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jul 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Jan 2019 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The objective of the clinical trial is to evaluate the mediating influence of force control on the pegboard times of adults (50-89 years) who are stratified into groups of faster and slower pegboard times. The hypothesis is that practice of either a pegboard test or a force-control task will reduce pegboard times, but the decrease will be greater and less similar after the two practice interventions for the slower group of participants. The outcomes are expected to demonstrate that force control is a modifiable mediator of pegboard times for this cohort, but the effect will be stronger for the group with faster pegboard times.
Detailed description
The study will involve a randomized, cross-over design with a one-week washout between arms. The two arms (3 weeks each) will comprise practice of the grooved pegboard test and practice of steady contractions while lifting and lowering light loads with a hand muscle. Randomization into practice order will be accomplished with a block approach (block size = 4) for each of the two groups. The outcome assessors will be blinded to practice order. The outcomes will comprise three tests of manual dexterity and the measurement of force control during submaximal contractions. The outcomes will be obtained before and after the six sessions in each practice arm.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Faster | Experimental | Other: Pegboard practice, Other: Force control practiceThis group will comprise participants who complete the grooved pegboard test at baseline with a time of less than 71 seconds. One half of the members in this group will perform the two interventions in the order of pegboard practice and then force control practice, whereas the other half of the group will perform the two practice interventions in the opposite order. |
| Slower | Experimental | Other: Pegboard practice, Other: Force control practiceThis group will comprise participants who complete the grooved pegboard test at baseline with a time of greater than 70 seconds. One half of the members in this group will perform the two interventions in the order of pegboard practice and then force control practice, whereas the other half of the group will perform the two practice interventions in the opposite order. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 50 to 89 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Able to read, write, and speak English
- Able to arrange transportation to the Boulder campus
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Cognitive impairment
- Major psychiatric condition
- Unstable depressive disorder
- Progressive neurological, muscular, cardiovascular, or skeletal disorder
- Chronic pain condition
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Pegboard practicePractice of the grooved pegboard test | Other | Faster, Slower |
| Force control practicePractice performing steady muscle contractions | Other | Faster, Slower |
Primary outcome
Grooved pegboard test
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Time to complete the test as quickly as possible
9-hole pegboard test
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Time to complete the test as quickly as possible
Jebsen Hand Function test
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Time to complete the test as quickly as possible
Force control
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
The coefficient of variation for force when subjects exert a constant submaximal force
5 secondary outcomes
EMG amplitude
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
MVC force
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
1-RM load
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Index finger acceleration
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Motor unit discharge rates
Time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Nov 2021.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Aging
RecruitingObservational study
PET Imaging in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging (BLSA)
Aging
Recruiting
Study Evaluating the Effect of Humiome® Post LB on Stress, Anxiety, and Cognition in Aging Adults
Healthy Aging
RecruitingObservational study
Westlake Aging Cohort (WeAC)
Aging, Cognition Improvement
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Validation & Intervention Testing for Aging, Longevity and Healthspan
Aging, Functional Decline
Recruiting
Feasibility of A Smartphone Application Intervention in Community Settings: A Pretest-Posttest Pilot Study
Aging, Dementia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Roger Enoka, PhD principal investigator
University of Colorado, Boulder
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Pegboard practice in people with Aging, run by University of Colorado, Boulder at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Nov 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Grooved pegboard test (time frame: Changes from baseline (week 1) at weeks 4 and 7). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Nov 2021; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 7 Nov 2026.