Investigation of the Relationship between Somatotypes and Hand Types in Healthy Young Individuals
,
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to examine the relationship between hand types and somatotypes of healthy young individuals.
Materials: Overall, 312 volunteering individuals (152 F, 160 M) from Karabük University (Karabük, Türkiye), between the ages of 17 and 35 years were included in this prospective study. The somatotypes of the individuals were measured using a previously formed Excel template based on the Heath-Carter method. Factor analysis and clustering analysis were conducted with the 17 parameters measured.
Results: The mean body mass index of female participants was 21.23±3.30 kg/m2, while that of males was 23.48±3.52 kg/m2. When the somatotypes of individuals were examined, 5 different groups were found to be balanced: ectomorph, endomorphic mesomorph, mesomorph endomorph, mesomorphic endomorph, and central. As a result of these factors, it was concluded that there were 4 hand types: short palm short finger, long palm long finger, wide hand long finger, narrow hand short finger. The distribution of hand types between somatotype groups, the result that endomorphic mesomorph group had long palm long finger and wide hand long finger, while balanced ectomorph group had narrow hand short finger was found to be statistically significant (x2=55.817; df=12, P<0.05).
Conclusion: The difference between somatotypes was not only in body types, but also in hand anthropometry. We believe that the fact that these results can be used as anatomical data in product design, ergonomics, and preliminary design of interfaces for young individuals in the Turkish population will contribute to experts interested in this field.
2. Marangoz I, Var SM (2018). The Comparison of Somatotype Structures in Students Studying at Different Departments of Physical Education. J Educ Train Stud, 6(9):108-12.
3. Tóth T, Michalíková M, Bednarčíková L, et al (2014). Somatotypes in sport. Acta Mechanica Et Automatica, 8(1):27-32.
4. Sheldon WH, Stevens SS, Tucker WB. The varieties of human physique. Oxford: Harper; 1940. xii, 347-xii, p.
5. Heath BH, Carter JL (1967). A modified somatotype method. Am J Phys Anthropol, 27(1):57-74.
6. İşeri A, Arslan N (2009). Estimated anthropometric measurements of Turkish adults and effects of age and geographical regions. Int J Ind Ergon, 39(5):860-865.
7. Jürgens HW, Aune IA, Pieper U (1990). International data on anthropometry. International Labour Office. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1971430859834030636
8. Griffin L, Kim N, Carufel R, et al (2019). Dimensions of the dynamic hand: implications for glove design, fit, and sizing. Advances in Interdisciplinary Practice in Industrial Design: Proceedings of the AHFE 2018 International Conference on Interdisciplinary Practice in Industrial Design, Loews Sapphire Falls Resort at Universal Studios, Orlando, Florida, USA 9.
9. Hong Y, Kim HS, Choi HE (2023). Development of a hand classification system for smart hand wearables. J Ind Text, 53:15280837231188529.
10. Widyanti A, Susanti L, Sutalaksana IZ, et al (2015). Ethnic differences in Indonesian anthropometry data: Evidence from three different largest ethnics. Int J Ind Ergon, 47:72-78.
11. Jee S-C, Lee YS, Lee JH, et al (2016). Anthropometric classification of human hand shapes in Korean population. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting; SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA; Published.
12. Mandahawi N, Imrhan S, Al-Shobaki S, et al (2008). Hand anthropometry survey for the Jordanian population. Int J Ind Ergon, 38(11):966-976.
13. Toy Ş (2018). Evaluation of the relationship between mallampati score and anthropometric measurements of different somatotypes [PhD thesis]. Higher Education Institution Thesis Center: Inonu University, Türkiye; 2018.
14. Jee S-c, Yun MH. (2016). An anthropometric survey of Korean hand and hand shape types. Int J Ind Ergon, 53:10-18.
15. Park W, Park S (2013). Body shape analyses of large persons in South Korea. Ergonomics, 56(4):692-706.
16. Nikolaidis PT, Afonso J, Busko K (2015). Differences in anthropometry, somatotype, body composition and physiological characteristics of female volleyball players by competition level. Sport Sci Health, 11(1):29-35.
17. Seçgin Y, Toy Ş, Şenol D, et al (2023). Associating craniofacial morphometry determined by photo analysis with somatotype in healthy young individuals. The European Research Journal, 9(4):717-724.
18. Carter JEL, Ackland TR, Kerr DA, et al (2005). Somatotype and size of elite female basketball players. J Sports Sci, 23(10):1057-63.
19. Toy Ş, Çiftçi R, Şenol D, et al (2021).Comparison of the Effects of the Somatotype on the Physical Activity, Kinesiophobia, and Fatigue Levels of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome Patients and Healthy Individuals. Iran J Public Health, 50(5):919-926.
20. Yang L-T, Wang N, Li Z-X, et al (2016). Study on the adult physique with the Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype in the Han of Xi’an, China. Anat Sci Int, 91(2):180-7.
21. Chiu C-Y, Ciems R, Thelwell M, et al (2022). Estimating somatotype from a single-camera 3D body scanning system. Eur J Sport Sci, 22(8):1204-1210.
22. Singh YM, Chaurasia A, Kang SS (2023). Anthropometric Characteristics and Somatotype of Elite Indian Boxers. International Journal of Kinanthropometry, 3(1):124-30.
23. Clerke AM, Clerke JP, Adams RD (2005). Effects of hand shape on maximal isometric grip strength and its reliability in teenagers. Hand Ther, 18(1):19-29.
24. Bayraktar NK, Özşahin E (2018). Anthropometric measurement of the hand. East J Med, 23(4):298-301.
25. Kretschmer E (2013). Physique and Character: An Investigation of the Nature of Constitution and of the Theory. Routledge. ISBN 9781138875401.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 54 No 9 (2025) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v54i9.19865 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Somatotype Hand shape Anthropometry Hand type | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
