ERGONOMICS, 1988, VOL. 31, NO. 1, 97-131

The pianist’s hand:anthropometry and biomechanics
CH. WAG1-JER
Institut fiir Musikphysiologie,
Hochschule fiir Musik und Theater Hannover,
Emmichplatz 1., 3000 Hannover, FR Germany 'Keywords: Hand; Anthropometry; Joint mobility; Pianist
The aim of the study was to obtain an overall view of the extent of variation in handsize and joint mobility in professional pianists. Twenty dimensions of hand size, 17

ranges of active movement and 11 features of passive joint mobility were tested on
both hands of 127 male pianists aged between 17 and 63 and 111 female pianists
aged between 16 and 64. The male hand showed signiﬁcantly higher mean values
than the female hand in all absolute hand-size variables with the exception of ﬁngertip prominence 3~5. The lateral diﬁerences were numerically slight, althoughoccasionally signiﬁcant; the variability of hand-shape dimensions, except in the caseof ﬁnger-tip prominence, was less than 10%.
All mean values of ﬁnger spans with the thumb were greater in men than inwomen. The same tendency prevailed in the case of ﬁnger spans without the thumb,although the differences were only occasionally signiﬁcant. Five of the 20 ﬁnger

spans were on average signiﬁcantly greater on the left than on the right. The rest of
the ranges of active movement (ﬁexion of the ﬁrst metacarpophalangeal joint, wrist
abduction and forearm pronosupination) were greater on average in the women.
The variability in ranges of active movement was between 5% and 26%.

With regard to passive mobility, signiﬁcantly higher mean values for all
characteristics were apparent in the women and, with one exception, there weresigniﬁcantly higher values for the left hand. The variability here ranged between

11% and 38%. A weak negative correlation prevailed between joint mobility andage. This was only calculated for the male pianists.
The corresponding characteristics in the right and left hand were highly
correlated, whereas the characteristics within one hand were, on the whole, weakly
correlated. Out of 1512 intercorrelations, 1387 coefﬁcients were below 0-6. There
was a conspicuous frequency of negative relationships between hand-size factors

and mobility.
There was a tendency for greater mobility in pianists than in non-musicians. The

question of the relevance of data on hand size and mobility when data on muscle
strength are lacking is discussed. The possibilities of the practical use of the available
data for the assessment of the manual aptitude of a pianist are illustrated by meansof a biomechanical hand proﬁle and the signiﬁcance of the data for keyboard designin general is pointed out.

1. Introduction
The playing of musical instruments, professionally puts demands on the hand unlike
those of any other everyday or occupational human activity. This applies particularly
to piano playing. The question arises: is every hand equally suited for playing the

pia-no? Many pianists and teachers believe that individual differences in the shape of thehand itself do not play an essential part. Manual disadvantages are automaticallycompensated for, by central control, if the playing is guided by a clear musicalimagination and controlled by a critical ear. Technique, they say, is a problem of the

98

Ch. Wagner

mind, not of mechanics (Gieseking 1963, Kochevitsky 1967, Kentner 1975,
Goldenweiser 1976). Others are convinced, that an optimal playing technique can only
be acquired by taking account of the individual features of the hand, otherwise serious
difﬁculties at the instrument, organic disorders, or even complete breakdown may
result (Cortot 1928, Ortmann 1929, Gat 1965). This leads to the question of how
different the hands of professional pianists really are. Apart from an anthropometricstudy by Sergeiev (1928), it appears that there are effectively no quantitative
observations on this question.
The present investigation concentrates on two of the three groups of mechanicalfactors which can in principle inﬂuence piano technique: 1 the shape and size and 2 thejoint mobility of the hand. The third group, muscle strength, is not considered here.
2.

Materials and methods

2.1. Subjects

The group of male pianists consisted of 127 men aged between 17 and 63; that of female
pianists 111 women aged between 16 and 64. For some factors the number of subjects
was smaller. The subjects included: students specializing in the piano at a college ofmusic (83 men, 91 women), teachers of the piano at a college or school of music (40 men,
15women), self-employed piano teachers with college degrees and concert pianists.
They came from 28 countries. One hundred and twenty men and 96 women belonged to
the Caucasian group, 6 men and 15 women to the Mongoloid group, and 1 man to the
Negro group. Figure 1 shows the age distribution of the subjects. Figure 2 shows the
distribution of age at the start of training. At the time of the investigation, none of theparticipants had complaints or illnesses involving shoulders, neck, upper extremities orback. Twelve percent of the men and 10% of the women were left handed.

5040-A
30-

MALE

20-

10-

0..

(°/0)
NCY

\

_

_

\&\\\§m..~.\\“\\\\~N§\
5

30

35

40 45

50 55

60 65

504030

FEMALE

20-

,__

§

\\\\\‘§\\\\‘M.\\\\\'\.\\\\\.\\\\§---..-

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

AGE (years)
Figure 1.

Distribution of age of the 127 male and 111 female pianists.

The pianisfs hand99

2.2. Measures, devices, procedures
The choice of characteristics to be investigated arose from the literature on pianoteaching (Breithaupt 1905, 1921, Kullak 1922, Ortmann 1929, Martienssen 1957, Gat
1965, Marek 1977), from joint consultations with piano teachers, and from personal
practical experience with the instrument. (The author has additionally studied music.)
Figures 3-5 give an overview of the 48 factors under investigation.
2.2.1. Hand size (characteristics I-20) (ﬁgure 3)
The examination of characteristics 1-6 was carried out according to the guidelines ofMartin and Saller (1957). The relation between the length and the breadth of the hand isdenoted as the Hand index (characteristic 3). For ‘Wrist breadth’ (characteristic 4), thedistal radio-ulnar width was measured. Hand breadth (2) and wrist breadth (4) were
measured by means of a sliding calliper; hand length (1), middle-ﬁnger length (6), andthe length of both distal ﬁnger phalanges (8, 1 1, 14, 17) by means of a ruler with an endstop. The proximal landmark for the ﬁnger lengths was the articular space, palpable on
the dorsal side of the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint. The sums of the phalanx
lengths gave the overall length of the ﬁngers (9, 12, 15, 18). A depth gauge served for themeasurement of ﬁnger-tip prominence 3-1 and 3-5 (characteristics 19 and 20). All
measurements were taken with the hand stretched out and laid ﬂat, palm downwards,
with the ﬁngers straight.
2.2.2. Range of active movement (characteristics 21 -3 7) (ﬁgure 4)
All measurements of the range of active movement were tested with the subject exerting
maximum strength. For the span between two ﬁngers (characteristics 21-30), thedistance between the centres of the ﬁnger-tips was measured with the aid of a special
sliding calliper. The angle of ﬁexion of the thumb base-joint (characteristic 31) was
obtained by using a normal protractor on the dorsal aspect of the metacarpus and the

5040-

30

MALE

2010-

adaxua ____ --

0_

15

18

21

50-

(0,0)
FREQUENCY

4030-

FEMALE

20"
10*
O __

§\\\Y

12

15

18

21

AGE (years)
Figure 2.

Distribution of the age of beginning piano training of the 127 male and 1 1 l female
pianists.

100

Ch. Wagner

_»

.TQ

\‘*~{._§

1

2

7

8

3
‘E
3

9

:%-§

T22

kg

"~—-\_\__§__Pi__.¢-/'_",_*_C3/“I-rQe

L1

5

6

10

11

12

ti;
Hi
ti

\i::s
13

..;__

19
Figure 3.

111

15

16

17

18

_{__?_

20
Hand size measurements. Running numbers are used in text and tables.

proximal phalanx. To measure abduction in the wrist (32 34) and pronosupination(35-37), we used stationary apparatus whereby concomitant movement on theproximal side of the joint is prevented. In both cases, measurement was done from the
Neutral Zero Position (Debrunner 1971) and the total range of movement was derived
from the sum of the partial ranges. Wrist abduction was measured in the pronation
position and was orientated by a landmark on the distal edge of the metacarpus, not tothe abduction position ofthe middle ﬁnger. The measurement ofpronosupination was

The pianist’s hand

- H.

'9

5:‘; ,

Li

_

(

1

i

/”/

21

1

22

r_1|."i3i
it

"1 7

,//7

1

23

%“ii,,
.111}

e=

K9

/L
24

it

(1

1,.

“\

-C

/,7’/<1/‘:7-z__k_

it.1

e--_,|ii'»"

:7“-

'~‘y
,-Ii"

25

26

27

Y

\"T*~ 9'.-~——-.,_/J1
7 \-r-"'7'? Q___
\\-s
/‘
2.

1.,

~

./
_

.-//7

‘-___\\\'

\ Q‘,
/I

28

29

30

1“*<>.._‘|i"7\7,;

—;

\

\
—-—-=_

if ~11‘“M..1‘

/'(____t\i:-2»-/'7'\~\~s_j-E1:-»-‘*-\\‘" -"-_D_ _

_-_.\
».:
’\
‘"9I

‘_(UT
‘

7

. 32

\.

ti

, /
31

32

33

34

J

35
Figure 4.

3637Range of active movement measurements. Running numbers are used in text andtables.

102

Ch. Wagner

liq"*1
i157113‘
i*1

I1

EL

1,(V

1

1

111.

ii-.'L‘-V Fit iii.171
1|:-‘ij'1"::'“-;:;f’-._'-.,‘\|: lip.

, *1

1,

38

39

Q, 3 5, K

gig

L12

L13

ea‘

“\» 1&1" '1-"'11'1 11:12‘

1
|rf_/

L10

3I, Q

L1L1

L11

.'.€;,_

_-,.“

L15

\ 7

L

L16

L17

1"’

_ ____ __-—-—'-—""'T'.'—~

._~

L18
Figure 5.

Passive joint mobility measurements. The symbol HP indicates application of an
external torque. Running numbers are used in text and tables.

carried out with the elbow-joint bent at right angles and gives the range of movement of
the distal end of the forearm. Movements in the hand itself thereby have no inﬂuence.
(For details, see Wagner 1977.)
2.2.3. Passive mobility (characteristics 38 48) (figure 5)

For the measurement of passive mobility in the MCP joints and the carpometacarpal
joint of the thumb, special stationary apparatus was used (see Wagner 1974 a, b). With
the palm ﬁxed, the displacement of the joint was measured under the inﬂuence of agiven torque while the subject consciously relaxed. The following torques andtangential forces were employed:— thumb abduction: 25 Ncm, 4 N, acting in the area of the interphalangeal joint;— abduction of ﬁngers 2-5: 25 Ncm, 7N, acting in the area of the proximal
interphalangeal joint;-~ combined hyperextension of MCP joints 2-5: 75 Ncm, 16-7 N, applied at thelevel of the proximal interphalangeal joints 2 and 4.
The values of the passive spread of non-adjacent ﬁngers (characteristics 3941 and45-47) were found by adding together the values of the radial and ulnar abductions,
respectively, of the two ﬁngers in question. It should be pointed out that the measured

Y»

The pianist’s hand103

abduction angle of ﬁngers 2-5 does not tally with the actual angle positions of the
ﬁngers, since the pivot of the apparatus lay each time between the pivotal point of thetwo adjacent joints. (For details, see Wagner 1974 a.) However, the absolute positionsof the joints do not matter here. The values derived are an indication of the amount ofresistance to movement (hereafter referred to in short as ‘joint resistance’).

2.3. Reliability ofthe measurements

The reproducibility of the measurements was checked by two investigators in two
consecutive tests on the right and left hand of 29 subjects. The text -retest correlation
gave the following coefﬁcients: anthropometric measurements: r=0-89-0'97 (onaverage 0-94); active ﬁnger-span widths: r = 0-86-0-99 (on average 0-95); active ﬂexion inﬁrst MCP joint, abduction in wrist and pronosupination: r=0-63-0-91 (on average0-80); passive hyperextension of MCP joints 2-5 and ﬁnger spread: r=0-73-0-97 (onaverage 0-89).

2.4. Statistical methods

It is apparent from numerous independent random samples that we cannot generally
assume a normal distribution of anthropometric/biomechanical characteristics of thehand. Especially with the factors of passive mobility, skew or perhaps multi-modal
distributions seem to exist (Wagner 1974 a, 1977). Therefore, in describing the central
tendency and the variability, we give the mean and the coefficients of variation, thepercentiles 10, 25, 50, 75 and 90, and the range. The percentiles were taken from theranking orders of the readings with the rank number P(N + 1)/ 100, and were linearlyinterpolated if necessary (Lienert 1973). The testing of differences between men andwomen within individual characteristics was carried out with the help of Mann and
Whitney’s U-test. Right-left diﬂerences were tested by the Wilcoxon test (Sachs 1969).
The two-tailed test always lies behind the statements about signiﬁcance in the following
text.

3. Results
The collected data are presented in tables 1-3.
3.1. Hand size (Table 1).

With the exception of ﬁnger-tip prominence 3-5 (characteristic 20), the male handpresents signiﬁcantly higher mean values in all absolute variables (oi <0-001). The
difference of sex is also clear (cx <0-01) in the hand index (characteristic 3). The lateraldifferences are signiﬁcant for men in 1 1 and for women in 5 of the 19 absolute variables(a < 0-01), although they appear to be numerically small. The basis for this signiﬁcancemay lie in the fact that the Wilcoxon test responds sensitively to differences in the shapeof distribution (see ﬁgure 6). The different results of the measurements of the length ofthe middle ﬁnger are explained by the fact that in characteristic 6 the ﬁnger wasmeasured in its entirety whereas characteristic 12 derives from the sum of the lengths of
the ﬁnger parts, which frequently do not lie at an angle of 180°. Variability in the handshape dimensions is less than 10%, with the exception of ﬁnger-tip prominence 3-5(characteristic 20). Within one and the same characteristic, the coeﬂicients of variationdiffer between the sexes and between the right and left sides by less than 1% on average.

C mW
Hma3%WU_ W
g_NH1m_ i£6(6MO
EaEVE?
2%
EwwgE
EV
25Q6
Ad
HE
8
émema
Maw
m0U888U2:®_n_mr
:D363
DEE
wwcﬁa
m
ot6E2N:O_2Q__
U_O§E_Ur_Sm
tg< 4

h

*0
E OUUEEUwOUUE:w_m___W_
5m>®0$Q
Uc®_5g

mg
0%
an_
gm
maOE
C32‘E_

mWHMNH_Oc_ g MadHQ36

aimE; ﬁ_:H1Q_ ?

somsHzW2 g:J

3HM€N 3%JQ:

MTS

22 _O_Hg

QQ
02Hgmm 82J

MEUQ
Qgm
DE
o2

SW3

Avg SH 3:

g aw _MW OMW

S 3 3 ENg_ S_ Q: HM:

Ma SW 2 E

Eu Q Y“ 3“

8

Q SW E Q

Q Q“ Q“ Q3 £ a g3 2 Q QQ Q Q 3S E

OMEN“CO:_E§ _a|MW©_ oafg; g_|©2 87$;

gig Q-~§ ﬁWx gig

glg“ qjg MWYMWM 9*:

glé A6‘;
Si
W MG’_W

Q02 O62 2: @p_¢£ EM” pg Q?

jg Q? SQ Mg?

R_ g :_ Q:

B2 02 _: O:an gm :H O:

S 3 3

pg

g Q

S

Q;

g g

M2 Q:

3 Q

Q:

pg

2%

g

3 S

5%EH
b2_m__
ﬁg3;:
®E3
E2:
Ou5>BOagmw2%unab):_Ew_:
gm2 NES?
Q: QM: %_Mg: N6: $8 EMS

Q?

Q

g 3 g ﬁw

SW S

Q2 IE

QQgQ

g g Q QEgg 7;
we Ngip 5T©§

W“0:]; 004,13 OOH’? Q9:

2% QM“ Q; 9;

pg 2% Qg vg

Qg 8% Ea 3%

CNN WNW :H em

QNW WNW :H EH

og WNW :H O:

(6
away
xowm
E25
2:
HUQMS
AEEV
5mg_
“swamUEUSZ
C2536
UumC80_W:W£U_

E5;Qgﬁ“Egg ﬂohm

AEEV
5305“E5:

AEEVi
Hgii
mam:

gEVE
NEE

5

5

g

6

§

Th e D__ M n _lS I ,8 h G H d

E
gcggﬂwﬂwEmg%
wuogoscgw 65

Q8%HmSW gJ@2
mg

aggHm“ma QJX2g$

$3
3QRHmQ: gggJ

_MW? _Q

2E62:20_ ®m

mg

EBOEQOU

9“ Q QMW?

Q g_ Q? gm

OE

2

®wﬁ_£

aw]? gig QIQT Qjg

G3

Q

Tm

SQ gm

Q

Qmwmw

MWMW

mg
2 Ma Q_3 _6%Qpg‘

OW Q“ 2 QM§_
a8%HgMhw EgmwJ_3 _mgQ

Omm
mhm%2SH2M ; mgJ5_
$_@

1

pg

5 SW

£_p
p

Q
v:

8N

Q

Mg EN EN Q

G
mg Q

CV 2“

a Q g Q

$8

S
Q2

SN EN
tau

3J2:
8%

Qa
QﬁgHQM ; QgwJ

_3

_mg

Q:

Q

N2 _o_ N@ g

Q Q g Qg 8 S £Q Ow Mg R

Ga

G?

Ew Q

2

gig gitgig gig QT? gig

q% __@ _m% ©h

Q“ 2“ E“ _h@© @_© wh A:

Mad 5% vs“ #5“

ﬁg Q? gmw __&N? W; 5% Q9“

3 31_
M
Q 3QM

g EQ _MWMQQM
g E]_
5M_MW‘HM

8 31_
M
HMW ;]_m

3 A
2
5M3‘_M

2

2

2

2

8 5

8 3“

Q

Q Q QM g

2'9“ gig MQIX $13

gig $1? MwM;© E
SW§|% ﬂlg $13 ©¢[©m

E12“ gig gig mm];@© A: _$ qb©_© 2 Ob @©

_m_@ 2“ Q6 2@© wb Ma Nk

gm Q9“ @£ ma

9? 5? Nag Q;#3 qg mg ﬁg

Q? $2“ OS“ $3“3m
5 5w_gM3Q 5Maw1_3MA

2

QM

E:
gm“
Hm

O5

Q

375 27%2 3C5557:
O:ONE
mE32
gogi
_ 80m‘:N_! Ug
‘#0

oaaﬂm

L

2

L

H_

H_

2

Eegoa
“MED
“N
ém_§_QS

EeiHES
Hm
Eﬁﬂsm
oa

zwma
:38
AEEV
UN
ﬁ_Eg_

m

5

6:

_§Hi“ED
HQ
222%
Oa

zwﬁ
:38
AEEV
Hm
_(_&=®_

ﬁm5_
AEEV£w__5_
AEEV

as

H_

ﬁmﬁ
_§%Hm§__%
+®_UE

_SHES
m“N
€§§_§_m
+®_UE

ENE:
AEEV

h_

AEEV
H_%%_

:
2

Ewcg
3:5

AN:

Am:

2%J
CN2hm WW
_HmM:3% rgwJ
E

“OBgggm
2_Em
_gig
mUW_
O$U:®n_5_m=v 6"A;
S2

e

Jgo
gmwUMQ6 2%

weB86580
UOgU£gwmm

©@Q
m§Q

Q

“Na

a a

:3
awH5m“ MgJ

S_

£3

g

mg

cgH2m% %$J“mg

afmMﬁ

R 2

Q2

Q

3“ Q 3 Ow

MWQW $3 mp:_

Q:
ognmE: awJ

Q aw

$2

g g aw aw

Q
W2“

5
pg

S QE 9“Q 8Qg5 Q
gmmg QQ Q g gQ EN

EgQOMHgz MQa

3“ Q Q Sg_:_pg p_ﬁE g Q“ Mg

E

Q:Hm$0 8;Jcg

R 3 : 2g g :a a Mg g

EvsS
R 2gm Q
§ E; g9Q“ 2Q“ 2:3E
QQ2QSQW?‘
2

22%2Q22

hwwgmCOEWE; MWm|g $13“ gig gig

S72 W2‘;

812 gig

gig gig gig gig

twg SW2 gig gig

g]©© gig gig gig

gig 8;“ gig g]O©

Qwlg Q12 mi“ tuig

C32

9% ﬁg W9“ ﬁvg

G3 pg Qgw #3

pg cg 2; Q2“G; Q; $3 2%

Mi; Q? WE :©

I; §§ pg QM6Emu W3 @£ Q2

CBESZV
Q3%
Ec8%_ _£UQ:
M 3]_ 3:
M g]_ A5
gM
2AEC:
Tm
mg
Q_HU2H_|_'0E®w:}_O_La_:MA
51_8
Mw:2A85_aw1_
g_HQU+_U~_§_E %AM3_:65wh_8_31_ Q:
5M
2E5
ED
EggE8
SW1_
uw gz31_ 65
EE8£w5_
651_
ag
Qg
M2é
: 3&5
M: _wAgMma]_ 5M2

as§M
2Aeavmlms
Q:Uggﬁaoa|_‘5w=E_m :_M Q:1_

H_2é_w_§_Q
EaiMEG
Hmoa AEEVﬁm€_
h_

AEEV
r_%8_
h_

zmﬁ
_wHHmx%§+®_m§E%_

A5
3

H_

h_

H_

The pianist’s hand

107

3.2. Range Q/'u¢'tirc Hl()t'L’Hl(’llI (table Z’)()1 the ten ﬁnger-spans, those wizli the thumb (characteristics 21—24) are on average
clearly greater amongst men (a<0-O01). A signiﬁcant left to right difference was notapparent except for the span 1—2 in men in favour of the left hand (oz < O-05). In the caseof the ﬁnger spans without the thumb (characteristics 25430), differences according tosex proved to be signiﬁcant in only 7 out of the 12 comparisons (oz <0-05). Laterality
differences were only signiﬁcant in 4 out of the 12 comparisons (or < 0-()5), in favour ofthe left hand. As to the remaining characteristics of active mobility (31—37), 9 out of a
total of 14 comparisons revealed signiﬁcantly higher values in women (a<O-05),
although these were pronounced only in respect of the supination of the forearm(characteristic 35). The 1eft—right differences are signiﬁcant only in this characteristic.
Amongst men, it is also the case with pronosupination (a < 0-O1). The variability of theactive mobility in this study was between 5% and 26%.
3.3. Passive mobility (table 3)
In all the characteristics of passive mobility (3848), signiﬁcantly higher values wereshown for the women (characteristic 38: or <0-05; characteristics 39 48: a<0-001); so,too, with the exception of the spread 3—5 in women, there were signiﬁcantly higher
values throughout for the left hand (oc <0-01). Variability is clearly higher than for thecharacteristics of active mobility and hand size and ranged from 11-3% to 38-1%. In thisrespect the results for the hyperextension measurements were especially notable.
3.4. Inﬂuence of ageing and ethnic factors
The relationship between age and mobility was examined only for those characteristics
for which a larger set of data was available. The group of female pianists was notincluded, since only 12°/0 were over 40-years’ old. The correlation coefﬁcients (Pearson)of the male group are shown in table 4. Even these results should be regarded asprovisional on account of the uneven age distribution (cf. ﬁgure 1).
The question of the inﬂuence of ethnic factors must remain open. The Mongoloidgroup (8-8%) consisted of especially highly qualiﬁed students, selected for overseas
study or for international competitions and therefore they were not strictly comparablewith the more broadly based Caucasian group. The Caucasian group itself should
properly be differentiated within itself, but then the samples would have been too small
for statistical analyses.
3.5. Interrelation of characteristics
The relationships of the characteristics to each other are presented in tables 5-11. A
selection of 29 of the 48 variables for which a complete set of data from 74 male and 53
female pianists was available were analysed. A reduction to an even smaller number offactors seemed to be inappropriate as in the literature and discussions on pianoteaching there are numerous, if unsystematic observations, on the interrelation ofindividual factors.
The corresponding characteristics of the right and left hand (table 5) are on averagemuch more closely correlated than the characteristics within a hand. Of the 1512
coefficients of the entire correlation matrix (tables 6—11), 1387 are below 0'6 and 991
below 0-3. Only 42 are greater than O-8 and 20 of those pertain to relationships between
hand and ﬁnger lengths. The frequency of negative relationships between hand-size
factors and mobility factors is worth noting (table 9). Out of 93 signiﬁcant coefﬁcients(a<O-05), 73 are negative.

Pb LW @¢®W”W W
_%®

£6
C2
E?B
BmeaﬁgBE:
gagA]:
E3EV
(6
EV
E
2&8
A3:
amt#56206
%__§
gig
O_Dmr
__OrcU5m®1osgag
O_N
5_w§§_Q
T_50__E_lUUEm
E
3::
_Em:
Ah_\
9
58
aemm
E
W__
QUE
2:
Uc5U5
£_§Eg_m2
X3
8m2%_z_g&__@E>:ﬁw£6®O:NO_n_EwWm_w_
mggﬁgﬁmgqéQgm Sb

$©

HW$

@O®

MWQN

2;

£6

mg

$2

$2: @£_MKS 3%©@Qomm
mgm
g_m>®_E_8_ ®n_

@@Q
ca
omﬂﬂm
G602
_ OEWEw>

©2

SQ:
S:

€_§_
E_

@§ E

_g

3%:

%_©

gé

2_N

wf

%__

Ed

Ma;

S“

8%

86

Q;

gm

M33

a@s

$2

2:

©_g

$6

©_8

Mwa ©g

2N

2&8

WQK

2%“ O8 gﬁ M2

Q: O: MW2 MW:

cg _g

EH2

@;_

Cg ms

Cg gd $2 $2

$3

gﬁg
Q8

q_g @g Mg 2N

MW: OM: 8H sﬁ

W3:

mg

@g

bmg

8 8 g

mi:

©a

g

8N g

Q 8 Q

33

mi:

Q: SH

SH Q:

wg

2 Q SW Q

MK R g2;ﬁg ﬁgg 2 @2 MW2©_:_ @©:GD:
EN ‘ﬁg 2:

Na SN

QAIME ﬁle QNIWE gig

Nail: SAIQWH Qqg gig

gig Qqg ;q§_ Qgigﬁ;T% Q72 STS 37$§©
@© __©WQKpg
Mg :2
3W:
M: HQ:_:_NEE_® E:8 £2@%QQNH$8©@ @©§SN28
Tm_

H;§©g@®gﬁa
2“ ﬁig
@@ £3

S:
WE qg
:1 mp
2%
6: qg
W2 gsﬁgQ2#8 #2$2 mg:_ O: 2 #2_: O: W2 Q2

zi O: We Q2_: O: We #2

O: O: 2: we

H: Q2 Q: E:

2&5
AEEV
gnaw028$“NiHag
EEG
Ew%38$Hm;

éwmc
AEEV
Ex?
"mi
QED“

ﬂag
5&5
PEO<"TN5%

3:5
ago
g_wQ@250““vim

VS Q3 O2

@gig
_HN]H
g_ HAKINQ Fg|%_

g_

©_g_

N2

Q MWMW

AK 9 w© Ms

Hg OS 8_5 Q

GS‘ 2%Q S g

pg

STQN Oﬁitu 87$ 87$

E OEUOU_WO

0_mE_~m

0%

gl
A85
3&5
260“
ﬂaw

§CBESZV$_8oe_rJ£U

A_NV

ANNV

AMNV

AQNV

Amwv

Awmv

T h e P M n B atS Ina H d

1

O9

mgca
0\
m
cgaszv
“:2
Owgm
g:32
UNGOE%WE
c:ﬁ8UG1_W@>_ g__U__N_
U:w®O_GOH@>DZ
D_ '_:U _HO3
EDOHOQE ®OEUWOUO£=wWw,“O_
O2
Hm

Mm:J

S;
Hm

:_N
J

Mwg
Hm

QQNJ

Ea
Hm

8%J

QNA
Hm

QAJ

gm
HM

MWQN
HQ

go
um

go
HA

21

o2

Q:

2%

gm

O:

gﬁ

Q:

E6

EA

2:

$6

Rd

ab

W3

£3 ®_©_ “_H

ﬁg W: #9 Q?

ﬁll“

Q“ EN WV

Q 2

g g

mg
m__
wm

Q: 2: S

8%Q

8 Ma EN Q

2%W

OMW Q Mg gm

RM

p_NmH mgmw

‘

E

W2

O: SH

QC?“

wg

‘

‘

‘

‘

__©OH go“

2
‘_

$5
1

OE

_‘_

pg
‘

1

SH

wax

:_ EH

$62

$4“:

QNS

p_£H

W2

©_ 2 2 2PM‘

Qg H_;

cm Nmw

Q;

Q 2
‘

Nﬁmw

Eﬁ

an

MW:

8

QH %_ $_ MW2

W8E

E ©© Mg

Wm

0% E@& : 2x\

E

Q“ 3 2“ Q

2 a Q QM

2 Q R 28 3 2 8

W2

W8

\

8%“
1

Eé

‘

D‘ 9“ Q E

g_g
S

£_

é

1

Q: wﬁ N: :%

O2

mﬁ $2

Tm Q Q£3 #9:HE Q3©_$ pg 3% HEN

Mg R

ma 6%

S

wt

M: :

TE
gig 37% 87$ 2“lg
gig pig: QHIQ: gca]; SW2: avg El?

;_1g__ cal: gﬁigﬁ £75£|©N gig gig gig

ﬁlm: Q‘: Sig QIAK

qqlg Sqg QIE QTS

gs Q3 ®_: $2

pg Q: wd 2

ﬂd Q2 Nd E

§N_ QMW QMW *1‘

ﬁém WON we QM:

W2 QM: Q3 Q:

3% Q3 Q8 $3

Q5 gmw _“__& ﬁg

ﬁg GR“ ﬁlm‘ vow

QGNH ﬁg QWNH ﬁg

ZNS ©__\l£ ﬁg: 9&2

qg MW_£ gﬁ §%Q? ma pg Q:

Qg Gm $8 on

EAEEV
cam2%““mlmimic h?

A82

2AEEV
Eaw
QED“
mzwwoHmlmh

2AEEV
gag
Eaw
0&6“"WINh2HEOF“E5
H_SE hAS2 QgE5:gag
O:O:h_
©D_®

2_

h

Q
scion036$

5

as

SQ

A5

W

Q
__w%S®>$O_w
QOBUSUQM

EEG
camU36“HQI
wﬁmﬁ N

“SE2,

A8

E;

I

1

Q0ggéawmm_W_
mDOg_6_E©

8&
Hm

Q\M

OWH

®@@

v:

m§QCmgm®QGHQ
2:2U::50_sﬁH

Q

3:
J

$6
UM

go

Ek

gm

$6

MWM:

QN

#9

$5

:2

$8

N_N@

EN: 5: gm:

ﬁg

®@

:6
J
Q3
HM

Q:

8 S

2:

8% €_; 2%$ 8 Q 3

Mm 8

9%

S

Q3gg

Q E SNma

SW

MWS MWE

E HM“ Q 5

SH

W02

@©:

H2

3:
_:

$_

:_MW3 géf23‘

2“: 22$

21%

Sﬁ

Q

3:

qg

KW: 9&2 23 QM:

GOTEN MOT; ST8ST3 M67? 2:12 SH]? 87$

QTON: MW2l£_ SNIMWQ M379:@d@_q¢Hpq_©o© qT_©N© mw_§N@

OQW §__faF_:
W; $2vowQ2QNMW__N_
Q2
W3‘ 2:2?Oh?_
aw

Mg:
@_@
as *HdSW2 ENQMWS3

2: E: NH: S_

Q g Q MaQ Ma Q Ma

S g Q gAvmvQ‘

2 Heggoh h_

Awmw‘LAwmv_4 QcUZHQNogwm
cajmogoama a

Mg

Mg 9“ Q Q

Ga

Dwgz \:79“ gig“ mwng MWMWIQHCUMOEUOQ

$_@
J

ah
Hm

gé
HA

HQQA

8
QS

:‘ 3

S €
wg Q8

9

age:
7:
Gogﬁg
Q82
DNR
Ogcgogmgo
%O

oaewm

h

h

AL
cocosﬁﬁ:Wc_ _|o€_w_
Q
Goﬂmcazmﬁg“
3S0“
Heﬁwgom HOV
GoggoaHE_ 8_ Om“Eb;A3T __h Q p M n _zS I as h G H d

1

1

1

2&8E
Bgaﬁw
$0
BﬁeﬁE5
266E
2n__g
£2
(6
av
Q6
Ad
95Q:Ema8
EMU5:566Ema
m8:2:
OzW652
OE5Nw_:mwm5_m_mW>%®Smdigwa'6
EgBOuEaUgOUcwﬁm%o
_N_
Bmaﬁw
mggﬁ2:?UEG8
gw _6m:_NH
mgdz0%WEO3
anca

Q6
H

#2
H

gm
H

Q;H

2%
H

gm
H

mg
H

8%
H

:_m
H

mg
H

N?

QN

$1M

8%

gﬁ

EM

gm

g_NH

ab

g©

O3“

MW_$

pg

£0

2%

WC: __“N:Q2:©Ng Mgwg

QM?

mg

MW? Q?

W:Wg £3

Q H2 2:

Q2

©N_N
H

$8 ©_%

S

we é: oz

S

g_

2 2 S

a

Ewﬁwe
Emu
E_m_
Ah_\:3
E55;:
E
we
2058%
swi
£xM%_o__>:>:O:®Q8mk
QUE
pg

g_%
E

8
pa Q S2E%

ﬁg

a Q

xx

CBESZV
Umama“EWEBONHNQU gOB_E§G82“EmmWiggig“ gig gig

g_£
W3

:6

8&2

wg
gSWQ2&5QE

ppﬁt: 2%:

ﬁagw
O:

Q

2“lg:Hl% RH|$ MWQIE

WW:

8 M6

W: MW?

Swim gla Swim 51$

E S 2 gETE 27%QZAK $72_q__N_mi ﬁg
‘

W

9“ Q

a Q R 2gmw£_; pgpg
3 QMa
p_g gQQ
Q Qgm2“2“ R
WMWMW E
3Wﬁ *$WQ 8W8@@g Q:£2 M“pgQM

oi 3: N_©_ W2
\

29“
Q

1

‘

l_

‘_

W

?

8 5 Q

Tm

52 2:

S E

SI: ﬁV|_& SHE 31%

QTS Cw: $1: ale

mg Mam __HN QM:§*& qg Q8 wg

G; qa ©g 2%

pg gm” gvd E2

Q2 2% g@ gm:8 §$@ Q2: ¢_g_

G: Q9“ Am? QQQ

98 QMNN gm an

2_ Q
QOSQL
DUQN®>Mmw_&

2QEgg
gwmc
Dzgmm“mi

2Q
3éwﬁ
gigg
2%
“vi

Ea
_U€__%
5&5
®>m%g
“mi

2C_V_3_H%
8&5
gagm“TN

2Q
3SLED
QgggHj
8% m

Ag

Ag

:3

Ami

A3

i8&5
Q5

C _|ﬂ_ WW H 8 F

1 1 2

HoUOEwU@EwMm__N_
m8_ %%Ug_§DEEOSAH

H12IE
93

ﬁg2%H$m6‘ 8
p_@Q:35%mgHmG: 2H2%HQA 2

mg
2
OE
WE
mg

8

CW Q Q Q“

Q“

Q_

gs

Ow Q

g

2%

8g

Bmgwm

pg

Cg
9“QM:HM9; W8ﬁgQ

gmw

$3

3%

ﬁg

Q8

3%“

p_@
: Q Q

g

g3$

g2Qm

Q E

Q_Q p_$
g

S

9“

$9“

ﬁg __Q Em“ #2

W3“ Sq 9;E

Q g Mg g

E

2

OE

a

owﬂﬁm

_N©|§ M618 @Q1597%

gig :2mgig gig

Qwém ﬁlm 8|? ¢@|©m

MWI_mS Egg

Q2“ :3 Q2‘ Z:

Mtg Gnu $8 #2

QM: @_M: vs Q2

QM: Ea Q: 2;

3“ $2 pg Mwg

HQ“ TS“ ﬁgs“ #2‘

Q; ea ma Q?

Qm GS 3% 6%__E pg 2; §:_Wm qg $2“ 2%

Ea
22%
wﬁA
EEG
DzwwmgH?“
$3
02M
EM
mQO:

3M
2QUgam%Lm
QA
EEO
GagaxM
H_AQ
$3
OwM
2Q
U3
8&5
ozmmmgTVTNU
gam1_M
3Lm‘_ Si

v;

2

6%

mg

2 Q

CBESZV
OGouwcgGGUEONE€CQ_O_gEU‘*0wg

3 M6 gQ9‘ p_%

pi
Q

g_E_
8

2%

2;
JQ2
V3QHzQ2 8

EN

Ma
:_S

pg 2_8Q

HGOMUEDOQ

M3;

82“ MW? a aﬁg2©HmQ: Q:JQ;
W;

87$ 87$

fa 6% ﬁg%|MW 8|@ all glg

2Q“NoamO?A
3&5
Dzwmmg“TN2HE13
02SE5mH]EO__'nHUQ
2_:M
3MA5
3M
QQ1_ £3EM:2mg®L§®_ &\p_O:A
uzmwa

The pianisfs hand

4O_

LEFT HAND

113

RIGHT HAND

r-s
O
-2-I

xi-

un-

0_

s\\\\
66

-\\\\\.““&\\

sﬁ

5

HAND

BREADTH (mm)Figure 6. Distribution of hand breadths of the women pianists. The numerical data of the two
distributions are cl os e( see t a ble 1, 1'me 2 ) , b u tth ere isasigni'' 'ﬁ can tdifference(cx< O-0001 )(Wilcoxon test). Both diﬂ"er from normal distributions by positive excess: O-313 ascompared to O-263 with normal distribution (Sachs 1969).

Table 4.

Correlation coeﬁicients (Pearson) between active and passive mobility measurements
and age in male pianists.
Right hand

Left hand

Characteristic (Number)

N

r

N

r

Active span 1-—2 (21)
Active span 1—3 (22)Active span 1—4 (23)
Active span 1—5 (24)
Active span 2-3 (25)
Active span 3—4 (26)
Active span 4-5 (27)
MCP-joint 1 active ﬂexion (31)
Wrist active ulnar abduction (32)
Wrist active radial abduction (33)
Wrist act. rad.-uln. abduction (34)
Active supination (35)Active pronation (36)
Active pronosupination (37)
Passive spread 2-3 (42)
Pa' SS1'v e sp rea d 3~4 (43)Passive spread 4-5 (44)Passive hyperextension
MCP-joints 2—3%—5 (48)

11
ll
11
111
110
111
111
125
105
105
105
83
83
83
126
126
126
127

—C>'13-13-12-11)-06—<3-07—O-29*
-0-O6
—O-15
—0-16
— D-34*—-——"— ct"r:C:JC:l—J*—UJt\J©\Or—~O i-~—O'34 -X--K-)9-0-39*-*3-21*~13-41*-0-23*

110
110
110
110
110
109
110
124
104
104
104
98
98
98
126
126
126
126

-0-01
-0-O4
-0-11
— O-03— C— 4 C:JC:J: @r-hr-r \Ou1u.>——0-17—-0-25*—0-03—*C>-21*-13-37*~ 1 S->09-0-34*
O-35*
3 25*-0-39*-0-22** Statistically signiﬁcant coefﬁcients.
(oz < O-O5).

l 14
Table 5.

Ch. Wagner
Correlation coefﬁcients* (Spearman) between right and left hands of 74 male and 53
female pianists.
Characteristic (Number)

Males

Females

Hand length (1)Hand breadth (2)Hand index (3)Wrist breadth (4)Back of the hand length (5)Digit 2 length (9)Digit 3 lenght (12)Digit 4 length (15)
Digit 5 length (18)Finger-tip prominence 3-1 (19)Finger-tip prominence 3-5 (20)

0-89
0-91
0-78
0-91
0-68
0-82
0-85
0-85
0-83
0-79
0-69

0-92

Active span 1-2 (21)
Active span 1-3 (22)Active span 1-4 (23)
Active span 1-5 (24)

0-79
0-82
0-85
0-86
0-73
0-77
0-77
0'76
0'63
0'63
0-82
0-75
0-69
0-84
0-86
0-86
0-79
0-88

0-84
0'86
0'86
0-92
0'78
0-75
0-54
0-82
0-65
0-68
0-81
0-67
0'49
0-66
0-84
0-87
0'85
0-92

Active span 2-3 (25Active span 3-4 (26Active span 4-5 (27MCP-joint 1 active ﬁexion (31)
Wrist active ulnar abduction (32)
Wrist active radial abduction (33)
Wrist act. rad.-uln. abduction (34)
Active supination (35){*1-¢/\jActive pronation (36)
Active pronosupination (37)

Passive spread 2-3 (42)Passive spread 3-4 (43)Passive spread 4-5 (44)Passive hyperextension
MCP-joints 2-3-4-5 (48)

Q Q PQFPQ’ o o o \.1- -$>€D@C\LI|v—*

0-89
0'87
0'70
0'71

* Each of the coefﬁcients is statistically signiﬁcant (ot<0-001).

4. Discussion
The comparability of these results with those of other investigators is fairly limited.

Apart from the studies of Sergeiev (1928) and our own studies on violinists (Wagner
1975), we can refer only to data from investigations on non-musicians. Furthermore,
there are usually considerable differences in the methods used.
4.1. Hand-size measurements

In the case of the length of the hand, different proximal landmarks are used. Martin(Martin and Saller 1957), Bayer and Gray (1933) and von Eickstedt (1944) took thecentre of the connecting line between the distal point of both processus styloidei. The
Deutsches Institut fiir Normung (DIN) method is orientated by the processus styloideus
radii (DIN 33402/1, 1978). On the baiss of a radiological examination, Garrett (1971)
has suggested using the crease of the wrist, which in most cases should lie in the centre
between the processus styloideus radii tip and the proximal edge of the 0s naviculare.
Hertzberg (1972) and Davies et al. (1980) have followed this principle. So, too, with the

T h 8 P _mn B_ atS Ina n _d

1

6
gagEwg€_WE§&@:2E5QDQESQ_U:HQBEDC
E
35:
ﬁg
H28
G“Egg
DBMP
®ODEE
NH263
OUmOB8mVgag
P|UC:ﬁO_U‘ 6Ea
Bgca
mm
QNQO
_A86“3
NR6
U%Eggcwwm
wﬁga
20%wg_ﬁ>$30:
Q5P8
BgagheOE_$388mﬂ\n__§E§m
_GE_
ww8B

Us“:
ﬁmﬁ
Ewcg
ems“;
£wﬁ_
2:
SQOEEOE
Us“EH;
ED
Ea:*0gm
ﬁwﬁ
Nﬁg
ﬁ@QwﬁQ
ATﬂlh:uwcwEQNEDﬁwcg
mE805
3
AAS
Q
AN:
5
Ag
8:
£3
Tm3

2MB3QR
QQ
gS8
2Q€Ugh_
a QQM
QR
8asE
SOw
33gQM
M83S
MgS
gQM5M6‘M6855603g SI

2SIQ3
QQ2a
E
QaQ3
RDogiag2
oa
Q3
3Q
g2M:
ERE8
SQgQ3“Q€%_EacI

Q
g
9“EQ
QSQ‘a
QOMW:_:QQ“OwSQE
29“
52Q;EE

2S
Mm2
Qg
Q
2
SWawmm“
Q“Q2Q
3“MmQ9“Q
awQgg

QQE“
;OM“
SN
M;Q“
om“OM“
Q2a
R
Q
QQ
MMW5
K“23

MgQ
S
Q
QSN
S“g
3
9“%QQSQMm

9Q“3“Mggg
a2£g
QQ

ﬁgQg%
Q
QMQ

gm:
E6
mmg
SE Qwm

Egm
5U55
U5
2;?
gA3
mohs

MAN:EQE5£wﬁ_Na S5wg_

ﬁ5&5
wAgwﬁ

ﬁAw:Ewg
Wwﬁ

1

5

I

1

CA WW H € r

6*€_W§_€@EHOOQWV
£2E5
EH2
Ewg
3::
E
@365:
cgezg
Ei25
S
gH25
EQQSV0_NE
swam
DS‘
wﬁgg
mug;
swam
H8
=“Em
0wgoE%:_§_w_U
OO

gﬁiaoaUgoﬁgoa g
8
3
Q
S
glQ8
QQM
E
S8
M6g22gQ
8!3
3
QS
E
M8
MKg
g
EQS
M61
mHm“Mm2maQ3SOhmE2g2Q3Qg282Q
Q
8]QC‘Q
83:223E
Em32ggQQ
S8Q88QOm£QKQMQ8S2:3g
8M6
:RS8Q
g
3
Om
2
8
QMgM6‘SI
MM:QQ:5
2Q2
868M:3:KS3WV2QQamgMgS3NM2a3Q8QMQQV|©@|
2
3_m
Q
QEQMQg2WC‘
8S‘
Q
2
S“
S
3
QQ?3
NbMa
SgS
:
3
Em
Q
MwmMmE33QaM;
gEu
QQ
M;2
8WEIQgMag
R
gQ
Mg
Q
Q
32Bg8
:
“SIQAKg
2iv_mmmQ“QOm
Mg2“Q
Q
9“2SM6Mmmm
2M6EQS€
3
MgSSEaE
maMgE“aE*0M08E3
géwg
ﬁwag
NMQW“Qiwﬁ$5Daomﬁ6&5EggEwcgEwcg
6838:;£3$3Ag5

bggmﬂﬁm
EpgwgB
2668
25
NR6
QNQO
A25
mm
§O%wMm§E_w___m$8mﬁ_AmO_OHg
mgwagH8
HOmaﬁaH2
20%wg__W>$30:

GU855235
gag
we
5
5QV

Us“: _l_%S_€NH Ma2
g Q2 :SgmaQRQ‘MgQ8an
Mg 3
EQ“M:2 S
Q“ Mma ©©

3
Ncam®>_iHO<

EﬁgQ/€< 3
AS
Icam022 Ag
E®>%<
Saw

A6
26¢2camas26¢icam

A5
EcamU52

The pianist’s hand

117

Table 8. Correlation matrix (Spearman) for ﬁnger span data. Right hands (ﬁrst number) and left hands(second number) of 74 male (upper line) and 53 female pianists (lower line). Values above 0-229 for males
or 0-272 for females may be regarded as statistically signiﬁcant (ot=0-05).
Activespan
1-2 (21)

Activespan
1-3 (22)

Activespan
l—4 (23)

Activespan
1-5 (24)

Activespan
2—3 (25)

Activespan
3—4 (26

Active span l—3 (22)Active span 1-4 (23)

95 94
94 93
84 84
86 87

Active span 1-5 (24)
Active span 2-3 (25)

51 62
56 52

89 89
92 89
55 60
49 49

Active span 3-4 (26)

20 19
43 41

34 34
44 55

Active span 4—5 (27)

28 36

41 44

44 54
46 50

45 22

43 21

52 36

39 21

57 50

59 57
63 29

57 40

measurement of ﬁnger length, orientation has in more recent times been from the volarskin crease (Garrett 1970 a, b, DIN 1978, Davies et al. 1980, Courtney 1984), although it
does not lie over the proximal end of the base phalanx. Compared with themeasurements made on the basis of the palpable dorsal articular space of the MCP
joint (Martin and Saller 1957, Bayer and Gray 1933, von Eickstedt 1944), differences of10-~15 mm are yielded. Table 12 summarizes some anthropometric data from various
authors, which should be considered, bearing in mind the differences in method.
The methods used to obtain our data on the shape of the hand makes them fairly
comparable with those of Sergeiev (1928), who examined the right hand of 140
musicians and 105 non-musicians (table 12). The hand index, which should be between
41 and 50 (von Eickstedt 1944), is virtually the same for Sergeiev’s musicians and our
pianists, as is the ﬁnger-tip prominence 3-5. All the other measurements are, however,somewhat higher in our data. Conceivably, acceleration is showing itself here. The
comparison of Sergeiev’s data with that for non-musicians has produced just as few
signiﬁcant differences in respect of morphology as that between non-musicians andviolinists in our previous study (Wagner 1975).
In spite of the different methods, the variability in the characteristics of hand shapeis comparable. lt is noticeable that our results show a picture of variation very similar
to the tests of Garrett (1970 a, b), for example. None of the variables (except our ﬁngertip prominence 3-5) reaches the 10°/O mark. It is noticeable that the intermediate
elements, namely ﬁngers 2, 3 and 4, are apparently the more biologically stableelements, whilst the thumb and little ﬁnger are the more unstable.
4.2. Range of active movement measurements
Systematic measurements of all the ten ﬁnger-spans of a hand do not appear to beavailable for non-musicians. Data are to be found in Matzdorff (1968) for the ﬁnger
spans 1-2, 1—3 and 1-5 of 373 men and 396 women. Comparisons with these data
showed that our pianists, men and women had signiﬁcantly higher mean values for the
span 1~5 and, the women also had a greater span for 1-3 (ot<O-()1). The variability of

1

1

C5hS
M
§M2’2|2|ml278|El5E]:g22|32|2|_o€En_:m02>€<W|8’MW?anOT:12|__SM5‘
3]2|g58|
22|8|3]SI8m_gt821
WRI8|El5|82A8
2|2MWQI
883Ma©©|3|
P504 8‘2‘8M6Q_ Q_§_Oa
A2|al8|82]8|
gigl82|3|©C|8|gi
SE2
VC_OS182]:|
ODUDN

8A25
?wag
ﬁg
Ewg
HC265:
Ucogg:GEES:
E
Wgm“5:506E_o__
H28
HE
U_XCEE=
“Em
MOM
gWUEE
mugs
5&5DEE:mOQDQmV__@~r_[ O_: _ 2_ OU£w_$_USE
ﬁwé£§®_
Ewﬁ_t2:
Uoggeoa
UOEEEOE
w5 g_
8Mal
8'MW?gt3|
Q‘212|gQ€Q’glQ!mlM61Ma‘2|:[5SI31SI
q_m;2z_o8sBgvp3m|Q‘2||813’ElQ1Q’_m__UE
3|Q‘W02|QVIEl
8|§V'MalS35[g8|g
3ggE3®>_ 5_3m_ C3 A2|2SMEI2:
2©M
3Rg:8CO1_m@:O©:O:M::2
DUQﬁ__|gS2
3MS:|]S@_ O%_H_UQ‘$1Q‘2|>Q]3|_§§__:®>ASIal
atSI32|
2|8M555RI3|
8S2
8|212‘8|8
Eo:g:
68'g22:2E8_>8_68ﬁg:
tNEgiWHES
EBESE
wago
V68
QiuwcaDEmamowg£_U8‘ﬁnwpﬁ
A:
555AS
$3as
682$32Ag8:
gig
E5
mm
$60
B
Nab
_vHCQOEEWE
DEE”
%$30:
05%wg__~>:8m%WE£__£
SgagH2mm\m_ __§E§w__@E_w_§_oH£w8:Q‘
6|
2|2|QM-MW?glRI
8
SI8|SIXVI8SI
RI
g2
S_ ®:_|O|€SH wt>?

8|:-Q‘33|2|2|2SI2]2;g£73S‘2g
6SI
88'35
3|SI2gl
S_Q§<1g|8|E]Agvz
gQ]®aw_®Zwm_wn_ 22|g|8|Mal
S]2|S!2!§glml
S£72’ET8
2Q3Mal2|2|2|
8|MW?QIQ]2|ml8|RI
2|ISI gmi$1
2|QI
m£1SIEN]
2SIg£
R
SQ
EQM
Q
EQVI3OmQg:mm2Cm
2|ml__m[gl2|__|
2|2'it
8228Q]
2|3|__
zm3:7H_MW?$1Mal
8‘QT8’BI:1B18
2|2|
U2_~0awDE5|883223
25]2|§ :738|
E:O€Em:w3oc auEQA2|82SI
El2|£7QT5?:1
Q‘glHm]822|§|_m|
mmmn_H£O:l_€“g_®013|2|MW?:1MT
H_®%UE2|QM‘
2|2|MG‘
3|8|£ 2|2’97AV?$
M2g]3|_m|“!ﬁlQM!
:7gl$mi“_|m& HEO_2n U_2 “!
2|gtQ2
8__
S§gS
gM6‘
3
85|3|S53||2]212g85
BXIgi:22%SHTh € W G H ‘IS TV as h G H d

ago
mm
6::
gjM8
XE
2083
S$3:
SEEN?“
C363:
__£
gogm
$28’
__®Bo:UEE2(Q53
mDEEaa_AUE_
$22
:2
Ea
CHEESE
gag
Ema
25
E5
gmw
5:506
HcH52
E
Cg:Bwgc
6%
x_ﬁU__Oe:_gawv“'_U_N~_;ro_UNR6
‘ E5

5:
3?;
A82
gzi
Agj
§:A521_
9/g€<§%<®>_HO<g£O<
E<28¢5%
gmm
ﬁg
ﬂaw
Eaw
swam
aim

1 19

Mg
3
Qm Q
Q“
@a
8© SS%8Q
R
g3 2:SgS
2
283
Q 3
5
2mp
|8 Q3‘cm”
8|S:9 S8M:
g
_M 3
Eg2
gt2M5
S 222|
S
9 M:
8
5|gWU
:|aE
g
:
8ac
O:N“ 8
:5
3
#0 Q
S
222gl
2
8|
S8M:
mg
mo
26S8
8|tn
O0M: GU
2M:
QC 5|
8|8
2|QSI

I
2
QT| 2QS 2
S:
2| SLg M:

:
Q
2| 3

2|
:
8 B

8
:
M6 8|

SI
:MWO8

Q
E
Q a

aQMK
Q

Q
2 a
S

AKQI35|

E
2
M6g3
M2
Q5|Q
S‘6 :|
Q2
Q“:2
E
R S3
M662NH
2E“2
QgQTm
8MalS
8|QV8
gl
:|
8|:|
M6
_N1:7 2
Q
M:
NH
R2Mg
:
S
51%
QCS1
S
:
2S
:g
ON:
8
Q
\M5]
QM
‘O|Q
| 2
MgQQM
QER
S
2
:2 E
M3
MM6E
WOH6 g2!
2|
2|2|
2|NNIﬁl2
©©
:|2
2|
ﬂy:1
gt; Mg
QV
QVIg
3S
5
Eh; %
2
6
206'
EE8|
3
:S:
SI8
EH3| M8
g
3
8
CSi2
OSg
Q
A
:2M:8
: S
8
Q3
M:M: 3|Bwswg
B
Hcﬁczwa%_Q$5__Go_oH3
§H%§
_mNE
_U__~2Qm
MN
w>_Kmm_~ﬁ_

as
Gsgﬁ
9&2“
OEOSUQN

Ammv_ w:OU26“
U:Om_:©_£w$2
Ch§O_SO:'oSEU_DwMH
Ame
Cosgazw
9/_6<:9Cowxoc036“$2_E6“£3
ml_wi“7m|N g
52

Q3
Q®>8<
OENEQDWOCOE“mg
Ugaw
YmOzwmﬁmsmv
cosﬁcoa
U>BU<

Agv
22%
ml0>M?m _Nn_

:2“uwz_mHwgO§2wDQ\€

C In

N
mm28
Ag:
‘B
3‘
C®£_b:%_
U5“@865:
Ewg“EGESOQWV
iH25
8&3
gg
DEE
ﬁzﬁoa
ﬁE6____£
bmngﬂmwgs
endwﬁnGo_:m_B_gw_:268$£r_®_:L oU

WW H 6 r
S
_m g

gag
UMQHQWﬁg£56“_HO<_HU<_E:|_©§
_
iac;
dam
gm
as
mH52
am_ww_£Uﬁgmm
A3
A5
Ga
g
AA8
AS5
ml“
vim
TN
A5“
dew68“dgoggoa
Goscocsc
muowgcowamsQ3
mAg

Qmgwugw
Egmwg
B
HgNR6
GNQO
Ag:
WMQE
gwgwaaQ8
Howgma
8%
®>mg?
c$30:
maﬁa
a_§_oHg
owDmm_ W

Q
;

2|
B1
M6
:\ Q

#6
22El

2
M: M6
S

238|g Qg

8
E32
3V
S
MKON
2kg2ON“av‘E
M5]B
SQ] Ma
M6S
g
S3
QM6
S
Q
28gg
Q
2
E
SEV
Q CAN2
g
S2
:
82 Q
gQ
9“8_:
EBl
Q
S
ivS:S
2
ﬂB6
yS Em88|QV
2
M2|
Qat :12
5|
8
Mg8:|| 8]
S:
8
E
SQ
l Dy‘
WC‘
:
3©©g
gQV
| MN

E
MG
8g
g
MSM:
g3i

62
“mtg
HEB

2|
S- 2
8@O

gggaa
g_6< No:_ _1O:v_~l_ “N$2Egg“ 2A8
NoAgGogﬁ 2EggU36““HEBI mmQ3QOBUSUQM 2§H335

gm
Uw___>/_:N_::@366

A=2504
OhaE aDmo:O3|a8
6COEEOEU>:
2 NoU< 3

Eu3 SIEgg
921 E 2Q22%
MNAg
2gaw
“Emmiwo gAguawgmwg

2C2®>m_Smﬁ6£_n_09NO$3
Ej62
lﬁg
im

T __hQ p m H S S ‘Ha n d
{L

1

t,

ESE
:2
Hg
Egg
ﬂow
U52
UgE85
NM2
“5588386
HM
Uhgga
H2
H>2mO:vim
wso_N:
A:D“U52ﬂ:®5_mn0w_Am=8E_@__6D®_mw_E£N%r_L giowqa ggaa
Tm

W3

3 g 3

Q3 2%

2 Mm

pa

E5Hm £H%=2
p E

ﬁwﬁ
E5
gm
isuw
Hm
"N
“EH3
HUG“
NEE
m: : €wS_€_wﬁ_
Em5_
£885
5235
€w5_
$2:
Q g

vs

Wg

S

3

g S g aw

£ gw Mg Q

w_: 9:

2% 3%¢&@ @N@

A5‘ Qg©©@$2 N__Rg

2%

3“ Q“ Q Q“

E Q

Q E

Ga M36Q

Awm 8

Mm Mm Q Mm“

8 mm

2g

:© Q:

93“ G3“Q g E gE“ EW__% Qﬁpg ®_§A
3%
M 3%Q©:MGE

H_
@©2
M22:
E 2:
MM £2
5%“
m2
21_C9
21_
O9
M2 O2

gﬁ+2 ©:
E

2
h

Q Q

gmw GRrm

ammoﬁjelgozémsagaéoz
mgmgmgz

E OESEIGOZ

wgwﬁwsalcoz

mgﬁgmzalcoz

8$E_2>

Ema
8%

8
80?;
_w_ _W_®ow
E_n80%‘;_w:Wg__2®>®mU®wE®>ﬁaﬁgw_Uow€§_®
$2
55%

_saga
DEE
E2:
Q?“
E2htugoEma
may
8g$‘6”_

MWN2>20m_5wpg‘sag?

Q2ﬂw_5n_N:U:

N\Z5g_Nmm

21

122

CI1. Wagnerspans is lower in these non-musicians although the gradation from 1-2 through to 1-5
is similar to that in pianists. Garrett (1968) has provided data on the ﬁnger spans l~5,2-3. 2 -4 and 2 5. The signiﬁcantly greater (oc<0-01) span 1-5 among the pianists was
also apparent in the comparison between our data and that of Garrett. But since
Garrett starts from the distance between the lateral edges and not between the centresof the ﬁnger-tips direct comparisons are not possible, but the same tendency may be
assumed for the other three ﬁnger spans.
The comparison ofactivejoint-angle measurements is more problematic. Even withsimple goniometers as used by several investigators, considerable differences in results
may be obtained, as Hamilton and Lachenbruch (1969) have shown. It seems to beimportant for the investigators to specify every detail of the measurement andthoroughly to practise the procedure. In addition complicated joints, such as the wrist,
present even greater dilﬁculties for reproducibility of measurement than the simpler
joints (cf. Section 2.3 above; also Hellebrandt er al. 1949). Finally, we normally
seldom execute a movement of maximum amplitude, thus such positions are poorly
controlled (Cobe 1928). Table 13, in which a set of published data have been compiled,should be regarded with this proviso. Most of these data should be considered as
guidance for assessing restrictions of movement in diseased joints. Nevertheless,observation of variability, reveals, that the range of movement of healthy joints may bevery wide (Hertzberg 1972, Cantrell and Fisher 1982). Thomine (1981) gives an extreme
range of 36—89° for the ﬁrst MCP joint, of 19-35” for ulnar abduction of the wrist, andof 11—39° for radial abduction. The corresponding values in our investigation (see table
2, characteristics 31-33) are even wider. In the case of the different mean values forlateral wrist mobility, especially on the ulnar side, it should be remembered that theorientation from the middle ﬁnger yields higher values than that from the longitudinal
axis ofthe metacarpus and that the displacement depends on the pronation supination
position (Cobe 1928, Kapandji 1984). For measurements offorearm rotation, there is adifference, as Amis and Miller (1982) have demonstrated, as to whether orientation isfrom the movement of the wrist or if the hand itself is involved. In the latter case,fundamentally higher values are produced, especially for supination.
Whilst the mean values for the ﬁrst MCP joint and the wrist of pianists are locatedwithin the framework of the other mean values of table 13, something peculiar appears
in respect of forearm rotation: normally, supination values are higher than pronation
values; with pianists we observe the opposite tendency. The fact that training plays apart in this can be deduced from the comparison of pianists, violinists and nonmusicians. In piano playing, the forearms remain predominantly in pronation; inviolin-playing, the left arm stays in fairly extreme supination. Table 14 reveals thatapparently the part that is most exercised increases its range at the cost ofthe other but
without change in the total range. Non-musicians, with their normally less biased
demands on forearm rotation, have values for supination and pronation between thoseof violinists and pianists but they have the same total range. Whilst the problem inviolinists is generally known and the possibility of special training is emphasized(Dannemann 1986), it is often underestimated in piano teaching. Zipp er al. (1983) haveshown that the myoelectric activity of the pronation muscles increases very strongly
with a pronation of over 60". A forearm pronation to 90°, as in piano playing without
abduction of the upper arm, ‘is clearly beyond the optimal range’. We have occasionallyobserved conﬂicts, then, when both piano and violin playing are practised by the same
person. It should be remembered, though, that a shift in the range of action of a joint23

T _h6 W_an E atS h aH d

HE§8Oh_ GOEEOE

L§+F§

GOEEEDmG
G$55
GOQDE
OSODUQM OWHODHVDM
Q
EH“HEB_OE_S |_mQ_hU_2Eva
S
H‘K3 Q g :2

gig

gag

+2;5?:g ©@ ©@ g :5

g

$2 E QM g 8 ﬁg

2

m:

Br22;
_m\CO“EUEg€ﬂ_e_5OE0>€_~£g:s_€0__w§
nw__ﬁg m_

_©+8

Q
+
2-8 ®©

§HBW mm 3 Q QM gm

M*_ ;Hm_wq

Emu
Amﬁcg
Om
255
avNwa
ﬁg_
$_:30%$_(%_“mEmag_UHEmUH©_:EDSfag
ANmg
E8:scwg
Ljgm
21%£2@__€_§v_

QEW_£2§_O9_EU
ﬁgESE__*am§_ om$2_5NC_£Uw om

iON
Ema
av
S2
ﬁg
Em;
wgen“
68%
w:“gem
cg:2
_)_g_

B
S2
Ea
:
E®_%§_;_5_E2
meg_U_EUAm8£_ _5w£2'6
mggmgmOE%=®E®©@U<
DOQOQHHO
WhDE<

mggmwaU:CMmgec_WpNw@_
E30£N_

Egcgm
Tr
H
2:3_G2Ou_§>UEm:
w$_2>__mUEW£

Egg
B_§__g_>Nw@_Q3E
Dmmsm

gcgamé

23/l_w:3Um

124

Ch. Wagner

Table 14. Left forearm rotation (means and standard deviation in degrees). Ninety-eight
pianists (from table 2, this paper) compared with 100 non-musicians (Wagner 1977) and73 violinists (Wagner 1975), males.

Pianists
Signiﬁcance of differences
Non-musicians
Signiﬁcance of differences
Violinists

Supination

Pronation

Total range

78-Oi 11-2*
88-019-0*
91-3 i 10-4

80-7110-3=1=
71-2i9-9=i=
67-2 i 11-0

158-7114-8~
159-2 115-3—
158-5 +14-1* Statistical signiﬁcance of differences was tested with the t-test (a<0-05).

can only be expected where the range of mobility, as with the elbow joint, is restrictedprimarily through muscle elasticity (Benninghoff and Goerttler 1975).
4.3. Passive joint mobility measurements
Observations on passive mobility of joints without details of external torques, force
vectors and points of attack are, strictly, not comparable. For example, the amount ofpassive extension in MCP joints 2-5 is greatly dependent on whether the force isapplied in the region of the base, the middle or the end phalanx. The position of thewrist also effects the results. In practice, testing of the passive range of mobility is
carried out manually. Such a test, then, is only fairly reliable if the investigator employsa relatively large force, but this is functionally not very meaningful for ﬁne motor
movements. On the other hand, on account of the non-linear relation between externalloading and displacement, we cannot infer the resistance in the middle range of action
from the joint resistance in the marginal range (Wagner 1974 a, b). Under thesecircumstances, a comparison of the present data is meaningful only with the data of an
earlier investigation on non-musicians (Wagner 1974 a). The comparison is limited to
the MCP joints 2—5 of the right and left hand in men (table 15). According to that,
pianists have a signiﬁcantly greater passive mobility than non-musicians, with the
exception of the passive spread 3—4 in the right hand.
‘
Two observations, which were made repeatedly in studying the joint mobility of thehand and independently of the special investigation methods, were conﬁrmed by our
results:
1. The considerably wide variation of active and passive joint mobility (cf. Harrisand Joseph 1949, Wright and Johns 1961, Bird et al. 1979).
2. The lack of close relationships between the mobility of different joints. Silman
et al. (1986), as a result of their own investigation, stress that ‘mobility at one site
could not predict mobility elsewhere’ and they point to the signiﬁcance of local
factors in limiting joint mobility.
5. On the relevance of the factors investigated. Practical consequences
As already mentioned, the study of the third group of biomechanically relevant factors
was excluded. The reason lay in the exceptional expense which an adequate method
would have required for measuring the apposite muscle forces. The relatively easy
methods of measurement by prehensile forces (Hunsicker and Donnelly 1955, Pangle
and Garrett 1966, Bankov 1975, Nordgren et al. 1979, Thomine 1981, Hettinger 1983)
would not do justice to the manual functions in piano playing. The recording of the

E22
Q
M
A
AM
Mp a H
mN
T
“Q
m
rmM

2
av
N
USN
W
_E
5:505
222_A$2w%
9V®_%r283
MEm£_CDQMQ25
wMENDEV_HwrwiE0:
E_OoHE:_wg_nm|Lnow:_hm
g>U%_>a_I

a
S T‘ SIn U n la

E:
QHQM
HQHN
Qﬁcbm
HQMWN
¢§mc22$__“wh_gHm_H_wH:©_glcmozNm
gag
jg
Q2
__m_
pm
EH0?
Him
3QWH
HG;
T2“
_2“
lMH
F®__gwN§®%O_R Z:‘BUm*uog*amcoIhncuetdmwdm

Elw:lOmI_i©ﬁ|_mwUﬁ_zﬁ_2

HOUﬁaw_‘ whowﬂc
O_mg_ §_ a\AE

@2368
6;
ow
AmE2
DEE
__gw§_/Vwc_WEw3E|:O:_kc"W8E;toga:Amoévg
w“moi
Uocwomg):U5_ocﬂ:mohcowtgcuwi

7h 5

126

Ch. Wagner

forces corresponding to our measurements of mobility would have demanded
complicated mechanics t1-1 facilitate measurements in variable and deﬁnable joint
positions and not only in the Neutral Zero Position (cf. e.g. Simard 1977). Such a
broadening of the investigation would have been unrealistic in view of the demands on
the time of the participating musicians, but it remains an important task for the future.
For the measurement of flexion and extension forces of ﬁngers 2-5, Debrunner andcolleagues have recently suggested a solution of interest (Stoller 1984).
.

HAND—PROF|LE
NAME:

W

__,,

DATE: I987\

F

INS-TRUMENTQPIQUOg_

JMALE .

1FEMALE

ta. .

1R.H.

A

NO.1_H__419

DATE or BIRTH: I965

AGE: 22

PROFESSION: SlL1d9E1l , ,_ HAN0Eo11Ess;L€*fI
REFERENCE GROUP:I27_ Mill? PIQFIISISNO i=ROPERrv

I 1

1*

——

F1
1
1.)

IA

g

I PE R C E,_N T I L E 5 I

1
1101

4

.

1

1.

HAND BREADTH

*

‘T

T11

DISTANCE 1-3 .
A Q7‘FE: NSGERTIP 1115111165 Eli-3_Acr1v. ‘

7,,F” _SPAN_-15

F) *-J;SPAN_
F1’ SPAN

|\)

2

SPAN

$9

(10. SPA Z

E

"1

111.
SPA Z w
____"

1’

1

4

1

1

g

.._*,.__ .

5-—

1

0

1

_

_.

._

1

A1

.,

i-

I

_

m -

_, T1

1-1

_7

"f

_

—

:

1

1 .

_

_

‘-1,

_

1

—

"

1.

'* W

5

"
1

1-1*

-<4

:

s

1

1

..

’1

1

1

—

-*1

1

1

..~~ E _#11*-

i -. f,,,-:1.
;31. HYPEREXTENSION 2-3:1.-51 _ ,_ _Figure 7.

'

1
J

7T

_

‘-.

1'

‘

—j——

1-1

1"
, i
1

'

1%
.

_.-

4

--I

MOVEMENT._.,..*.-*
_*,_

_

7

E

,

j

i

T_

(

i

3

1-1

—

11-:
1
H

_+_

1

_

T

‘-1

-i .
1

—‘

-

.

)1

1
I
T

_

{A

*

1

J

1
—z

at

1

*1

11

_r_-~

[

7.1

.

4

1

1'1

1

_

2 _

l32:HYPEREXTEN_§lON2-3—l.—5lli

,

.1

‘
e

,1

111

.

_

5

_D

*

-

29. SPREAD 3

‘-1

Q
_

PO

£\U\

._

f

’1

1“

_

n-I

531'“

I

¢

-1

1
_,

1*

1i27.A_SPBEA

1"

"I

(J

U’!
24.1“ SPREAD'“25.is15REA U 1
126]
SPREA U co bid
‘E
71

-1

1

1 .

_

_

.

,

'

I_

in--"

A 1-1

N)

L

,

L _
, __j
PA ss1vE
R Ag N 0 E 0 F.30.’SPREAD

_n_
If

1'1

:-

7%
1

F19.’_ §.LBOW_SUP1NATlON Z _3°-1 ELBOW PRONATION ,_,, +_,_

-0

—;

T‘

_

-ii

r

A1 ta WRIST RADIA L ABDUCTIO N

‘

._.

1

_

-

;_

1'/.‘~‘wmsr ULNAR Asoucrieu
I -:1- A ---W

—nQ

P

—11
1

jf

1

1

1[
1
1

.16. THUMB FLEXION

UCJ
28. r. SPREA
e -—

—

_p1*

-A

T

1

14. SPAN uw*1\ - uwb

22; SPREAD
I211 SPREAD

-——

.

iiw

__2-5A. 15lsPAN
1

121.LsPREA0

"

1

1-‘

11

1431‘

b

13. SPA,ZZ

‘

.

Au

i

_

- U1

‘:

.

‘

11

CA3

‘12, SPA

1_11

1_

A
'1__

1

z~

-

M OVEMENT_.
_ W
4
.4

Aim

- U1
'\,_n

—

1-A

_

RANGE OF2 -__ X.

1

ti

11

‘

'1

C0

H

11

--

i,

T_

1

‘

*1

v
1
-.

P FINGERTHF-‘

-.

T

I’

1

‘.

$~‘!\’.—- WRIST BREADTH

1

.90-.

HAND LENGTH.

1

1

I I J ll

1251150 11751

pa A N ow sja A PE

"*

mg

I
g _g U _

pl
I 1

—T

g

‘

Biomechanical hand proﬁle. For explanation, see the text.

*1

—

.

_

_L’

The pianisfs hand127

The present data, however, even without available data on muscle strength aretheoretically and practically signiﬁcant as they suggest that there is evidence against theconcept of the ‘average hand’ and in favour of manual requirements peculiar to
instrument training. The connection between local anatomical factors and dexterity,
which Guilford (1958) suspected, have become apparent in comparative studies ofmusicians with different technical abilities (Wagner 1984). A further comparison of
instrumentalists with and without complaints to do with the locomotor system(Wagner 1987) points to the causal role especially of the factor ofjoint mobility in theemergence of these complaints and diseases.
The present data therefore form a useful basis for individual assessment and advice.
For this we have used a biomechanical hand-proﬁle as illustrated in ﬁgure 7. In thisresults of measurement on an individual are presented in relation to the percentiles of acomparison group. In the case illustrated, the reason for the examination was
tendonitis, which this piano student developed after doing exercises to increase theﬁnger spans. The relative shortness of the ﬁfth ﬁnger, the extremely small ﬁnger spans
and the considerable passive joint resistance clearly pointed to the danger of manualover-exertion. Thus the problem could have been predicted and it could be that theregular use of such a test would contribute towards reducing the frequency ofoccupational ailments. Above all they might contribute towards improving the
instrumental performance of those who do not belong to the small group of people whoare manually specially gifted.
The present data might also contribute to the ergonomic arrangement of the
keyboard of musical instruments the development of which, unlike that of ‘historical’
keyboard instruments, is not yet over; and perhaps also to the design of manuallyoperated, but non-musical, keyboards.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Professor B. Schneider, Institut fiir Biometrie, Medizinische
Hochschule Hannover, for many helpful discussions of statistical methods, Mr D.
Drescher for computation of the data, Mrs M. Doelitzsch and Mrs E. Santo for theirtechnical assistance in preparing the manuscript and Mr P. Bennett, M. A., for the
English translation. Studies were supported by Stiftung Volkswagenwerk Hannover.
Finally, I would like to thank all those musicians who took part in the investigation.
References
AMERICAN Actxoamv OF ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, 1966, Joint Motioh: Method ofMeasuring andRecording (Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh).
AMIS, A. A., and MILLER, J. H., I982, The elbow. In Climbs in Rheumatic Diseases (Edited by V.
WRIGHT) (Saunders Company Ltd, London), pp. 57l~593.
BANI<ov, ST., 1975, Zusatzteste fur die Handmuskeln. Zeitsc.'*hrI')‘ifrLir Physiotherapie. 27. 49 55.
BARTER, J. T., EMANUEL, J., and TRUETT, B., 1957, A statistical evaluation ofjoint range data.
Report No. WADC~TN-57-311, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson
AFB, Ohio.
BAYER, L. M., and GRAY, H., 1933, The hand: method of measurement. American Journal of
Phy.sical Anthropology, 17, 379—4l5.
BI5NNINGHOFI~', A., and GOERTTLER, K., 1975, Lehrbuch der Anatomie des Menschen (Edited by H.

FIZRNER and J. ST/\III2I>:sAI\1n) (Urban & Schwarzenberg, Miinchen).
BIRD, H. A., and STOWE, J., 1982, The wrist. In Climrs in Rheumatic Diseases (Edited by V.
WRIGHT) (Saunders Company Ltd., London), pp. 559—569.
BREITHAUPT, R. M., I905, (lst edition), 1921 (5th edition), Die Natiirliche Klaviertechnik (Kahnt,
Leipzig).

128

Ch. Wagner

CANTRELL, T., and FISHER, T., 1982, The small joints of the hands. In Clinics in Rheumatic
Diseases (Edited by V. WRIGHT) (Saunders Company Ltd., London), pp. 545-557.
CHAPCHAL, G., 1981, Untersuchung des Haltungs- und Bewegungssystems. In Orthopiidie in

Praxis und Klinik (Edited by A. N. WITT, H. RETTIG, K. F. SCHLEGEL, M. HACKENBROCH
and W. HUPFAUER), Band II Allgemeine Orthopadie (Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart),
pp. 2.1 2.30.
CORE, H. M., 1928, The range of active motion at the wrist of white adults. Journal ofBone andJoint Surgery, 26, 763-774.
CORTOT, A., 1928, Grundbegriﬂe der K laviertechnik (Editions Salabert, Paris).

COURTNEY, A. J ., 1984, Hand anthropometry of Hong Kong Chinese females compared to otherethnic groups. Ergonomics, 27, 1169-1180.
DANNEMANN, U., 1986, Isometrische Ubungenfiir Geiger (2nd edition) (Braun Verlag, Duisburg).

DAvIEs, B. T., ABAOA, A., BENSON, K., CORTNEY, A., and MINTO, J., 1980, Female hand dimensions
and guarding of machines. Ergonomics, 23, 79-84.
DEERUNNER, H. U., 1971, Gelenkmessung (Neutral “0”Methode), Langenmessung,Umfangmessung. Bulletin der Schweizer Arbeitsgemeinscha/t fiir Osteosynthesefragen(AO).
DIN (Deutsches Institut fiir Normung e.V.), 1978. Korpermafie des Menschen: Begriffe,
Meﬁverfahren. DIN 33402 Teil 1 (Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin).
DIN (Deutsches Institut fiir Normung e.V.), 1981, Korpermalie des Menschen: Werte. DIN
33402 Teil 2 (Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin).
EICKSTEDT, E., FREIHERR voN, 1944, Die Forschung am Menschen, Teil 2 (Ferdinand Enke Verlag,
Stuttgart), p. 1232.
GAT, J., I965, Die Technik des Klavierspiels (Biirenreiter, Kassel).

GARRETT, J . W., 1968, Clearance and performance values for the bare-handed and the pressuregloved operator. Report No. AMRL-TR-68-24, Aerospace Medical ResearchLaboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
GARRETT, J. W., 1970 a, Anthropometry of the air force female hand. Report No. AM RL-TR-6926, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
GARRETT, J. W., 1970 b, Anthropometry of the hand of male air force ﬂight personnel. Report No.
AMRL-TR-69-42, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB,Ohio.
GARRETT, J. W., 1971, The adult human hand: some anthropometric and biomechanicalconsiderations. Human Factors, 13, 117-131.
GIESEKING, W., 1963, So wurde ich Pianist (F.A. Brockhaus, Wiesbaden), p. 93.
GOLOENWEISER, A., 1976, Von der Interpretation, der Technik und der Arbeit. In Notate zur
Pianistik (Edited by H. Sahling) (VEB Deutscher Verlag fiir Musik, Leipzig), p. 43.
GUILEORD, J. P., 1958, A system of the psycho-motor abilities. American Journal ofPsychology,
71, 164-174.
HAMILTON, G. F., and LACHENBRUCH, P., 1969, Reliability of goniometers in assessing ﬁnger joint
angle. Physical Therapy, 49, 465-469.
HARRIS, H., and JOSEPH, J., 1949, Variation in extension of the metacarpo-phalangeal andinterphalangeal joints of the thumb. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 31, 547-559.
HELLEBRANOT, F. A., DuvALL, E. N., and MOORE, M. L., 1949, The measurement ofjoint motion:
Part III—Reliability of goniometry. Physical Therapy Review, 29, 302-307.
HERTZBERG, H. T. E., 1972, Engineering Anthropology. In Human Engineering Guide toEquipment Design (Edited by H. P. VAN COTT and R. G. KINKADE) (Washington: US
Government Printing Ofﬁce), pp. 468-584.
HETTINGER, TH., 1983, Isometrisches M uskeltraining (Georg Thieme Verlag: Stuttgart).
HuNsIcI<ER, P. A., and DONNELLY, R. J., 1955, Instruments to measure strength. Research
Quarterly, 26, 408-420.

KAPANDJI, J. A., 1984, Funtionelle Anatomic der Gelenke, Band 1 (Ferdinand Enke Verlag,
Stuttgart), pp. 120, 134, 232.
KENTNER, L., 1975, Das Klavier (Ingse Verlag, Zug), p. 65.
KOcHEvITsr<Y, G., 1967, The Art ofPiano Playing (Summy-Birchard Company, Evanston), p. 17.
KULLAK, A., 1922, Die Asthetik des K lavierspiels (Kahnt, Leipzig).
LIENERT, G. A., 1973, Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik, Band 1 (Verlag Anton Hain,
Meisenheim), p. 46.

The pianist’s hand

129

MAREK, C., 1977, Lehre des Klavierspiels (2nd edition) (Atlantis- Musikverlag, Zurich).
MARTIENSSEN, C. A., 1957, Schopferischer Klavierunterricht (2nd edition) (Breitkopf & Héirtel,
Lie zi .
MARTIN, R.,%i)nd SALI-I5R. K., 1957, Lehrhucli der Anihropologie, Band 1 (3rd edition) (Gustav
Fischer Verlag. Stuttgart ). pp. 335 337.
l\/IA'l'7.l)()Rl-'l~, J., 1968, Anthropometrische Probleme in der lndustrie. Internationale Zeitsehrift_/ilir angewandte Physiologie einschl. Arbeitspliysiologie, 25, 151-161.

NOROGREN, B., El.EMESKOG, A., and NILSSON, A., 1979, Method for measurement of maximal
isometric muscle strength with special reference to the ﬁngers. Uppsala Journal of Medical
Sciences, 84, 188-194.
ORTMANN, O., 1929, The Physiological Mechanics of Piano Technique (Kegan Paul, Trench,

Trubner & Co., London, Reprint: Dutton and Co., Inc., New York, 1962).
PANGLE, R., and GARRETT, L., 1966, Origin of the springscale dynamometer. Research Quarterly,
37, 155-156.
.
RUSSE, O. A., GEBHARDT, J. J., and RUSSE, O. J., 1982, Neutral-Null-Methode und'SFTR-

N otierung (2nd edition) (Verlag Hans Huber, Bern).
SACHS, L., 1969, Statistische Auswertungsmethoden (2nd edition) (Springer-Verlag, Berlin), pp.
99-100, 293-300, 312-313.
SCHARIZER, E., 1981, Klinische Untersuchung. In Handchirurgie Band 1 (Edited by H. NIGST, D.

BUC-K— GRAMCKO and H. MILLESI) (Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart), pp. 3.1-3.18.
SERGEIEV, V. J., 1928, The musicians hand (in Russian). Russkij Antropologiceskij Zurnal, 16, 4555.
SILMAN, A. J., HASKARI), D., and DAY, S., 1986, Distribution ofjoint mobility in a normal
population: results of the use of lixed torque measuring devices. Annals ofthe Rheumatic
Diseases, 45, 27-35.

SIMARI), T. G., 1977, Fine neuromuscular control of the posterior deltoid muscle duringresistance to ﬁnger extension. American Journal of Physical Medicine, 56, 275-292.
STOLLI-IR. C. 1984. Fingerperimetrie und Finger-Kraftmessung. Dissertation, Bern.
THOMINE. J. M.. 1981. The clinical examination of the hand. In The Hand, vol I (Edited by R.
Tubiana) (Saunders Company, Philadelphia), pp. 616-647.
WAGNER, CH., 1974 a. Determination of ﬁnger ﬂexibility. European Journal of Applied
Physiology. 32, 259-278.

WAGNER, C 1974 b. Die Messung rheologischer Groﬁen an Gelenken der menschlichen Hand
in viro. In Biopolyrnere und Biomechanik von Bindegewebssystemen (Edited by F.

HARTMANN) (Springer~Verlag, Berlin), pp. 511-518.
WAGNER, CH.. 1975. Physiologische Vorausetzungen fiir das Geigenspiel. In Violinspiel undViolinmusik in Gescliiclite und Gegenwart (Edited by V. SCHWARZ) (Universal Edition,Wien), pp. 196-210.
WAGNER, CH.. 1977. Determination of the rotary flexibility of the elbowjoint. European Journalof Applied Pl1_l'Slt)ltJ_t]_t'. 37, 47-59.

WAGNER, CH.. 1984. Success and failure in music performance: Biomechanics of the hand.
Conference on The Biology ofMusic Making, Denver, Colorado,

WAGNER, CH.. 1987. The evaluation of the musician’s hand: An approach to prevention ofoccupational diseases. In Music in Medicine (Edited by R. SPINTGE and R. DROH) (Springer
Verlag, Berlin). pp. 333-341.
WRIGHT, V., and JOHNS, R. J., 1961, Quantitative and qualitative analysis of joint stiﬁness innormal subjects and in patients with connective tissue diseases. Annals of the Rheumatic
Diseases. 20, 36-45.

ZIPP, P., HAIDER, E., HALPERN, N., and ROHMERT, W., 1983, Keyboard design throughphysiological strain measurements. Applied Ergonomics, 14, 117-122.
Manuscript received and accepted 26 October 1987.
L’objectif de cette etude d’acquérir une vue d’ensemble sur l’étendue de la marge de variation
dans les dimensions de la main et dans la mobilité articulaire des pianistes professionnels. Sur 127
pianistes hommes ages de 17 a 63 ans et 111 pianistes femmes éigées de 16 a 64 ans, on a relevé, surles deux mains, 20 mensurations de la main, 17 étendues de mouvements actifs et 1 1
caracteristiques de la motilité articulaire passive. On a trouvé des valeurs moyennes

130

Ch. Wagnersigniﬁcativement plus elevees dans la main masculine que dans la main feminine pour toutes lesvariables absolues, sauf pour la proeminence du bout des doigts. Les differences laterales etaient
numeriquement faibles, bien que parfois signiﬁcatives. La variabilite des dimensions manuelles
etait inferieure a 10%, sauf en ce qui concerne la proeminence du bout des doigts. Les valeursmoyennes de l’envergure digitale avec le pouce etaient toutes plus elevees chez les hommes quechez les femmes. Cette meme tendance Se retrouvait dans l’envergure sans le pouce, bien que dansce cas, la difference n‘etait qu’occasionellement Signiﬁcative. Cinq sur les 20 envergures etaient en
moyenne signilicativement plus grandes sur la main gauche que sur la main droite. Les etendues

des mouvements actifs (ﬂexion de la premiere articulation MCP, abducation du poignet etpronosupination de l"avant-bras) etaient, en moyenne, plus grandes chez les femmes. La
variabilite de ces etendues etait comprises entre 5 et 26%. En ce qui concerne la motilite passive,on a trouve, chez les femmes, des valeurs moyennes signiﬁcativement plus elevees pour la maingauche. Ici la variabilite se Situait entre 11 et 38°/0. Une faible correlation negative prevalait entre
la motilite articulaire et l’éige; mais le calcul n’a porte que sur les pianistes hommes. Les
caracteristiques homologues sur les mains droites et gauches etaient fortement correlees, alors
que les caracteristiques sur la meme main etaient, dans l’ensemble, faiblement correlees. Sur 1512
intercorrelations, 1387 coefﬁcients etaient inferieurs a 0,6. Il y avait une tres apparente frequencede liaisons negatives entre les facteurs dimensionnels de la main et de la motilite. On a observe
une tendance pour une motilite plus grande chez les pianistes que chez les non-instrumentistes.
On argumente la question de la pertinence des donnees relatives aux mensurations de la main eta
la motilite en l’absence de donnees concernant la force musculaire. L’utilite pratique des donnees
disponibles pour l’analySe des aptitudes man uelles des pianistes est illustree au moyen d’un proﬁlbiomecaniq ue de la main. La pertinence des donnees pour la conception des claviers, en general,
est mise en lumiere.
Der Zweck der Studie war es, einen Uberblick zu gewinnen iiber das Ausma13 der Variation
von Handgroﬁe und Gelenkbeweglichkeit der Hand bei professionellen Pianisten. Zwanzig
Handgrofieneigenschaften, 17 aktive Bewegungsumfange und 11 Eigenschaften der passiven
Gelenkbeweglichkeit wurden an beiden Hiinden von 127 Pianisten im Alter von 17 bis 63 Jahren
und 111 Pianistinnen im Alter von 16 bis 64 Jahren untersucht, teilweise unter Einsatz spezieller
Melimethoden. Hinsichtlich der Handgrolie zeigte die miinnliche Hand in allen absoluten
Variablen Signiﬁkant hohere Durchschnittswerte als die weibliche Hand, mit Ausnahme derFingerspitzenprominenz 3-5. Die Seitendiﬂerenzen waren numerisch gering, zum Teil jedochsigniﬁkant.
Die
VariabilitéitderHandformma13e
lag,
mit
Ausnahme
derFingerspitzenprominenz, unter 10%. Alle Durchschnittswerte der Spannweiten mit dem
Daumen waren bei Méinnern deutlich grO13er als bei Frauen. Bei den Spannweiten ohne Daumen
bestand die gleiche Tendenz, die Unterschiede waren aber nur zum Teil signiﬁkant. Fiinf
der 20 Spannweiten waren im Durchschnitt links signiﬁkant grolier als rechts. Die iibrigen
aktiven Bewegungsumfiinge (Beugung des Daumengrundgelenks, Handgelenk-Abduktion,
Unterarm-Pronosupination) waren, soweit signiﬁkant unterschiedlich, auf Seiten der Frauen im
Mittel grO13er. Die Variabilitéit der aktiven Bewegungsumféinge lag zwischen 5 und 26%.
Hinsichtlich der passiven Beweglichkeit zeigten sich bei allen Merkmalen signiﬁkant hohere
Durchschnittswerte auf Seiten der Frauen und, mit einer Ausnahme, Signiﬁkant hohere Werte inder linken Hand. Die Variabilitéit lag hier zwischen 11 und 38°/0. Zwischen Gelenkbeweglichkeit
und Alter (nur fiir die mannlichen Pianisten berechnet) bestand eine schwache und stets negative
Korrelation. Die entsprechenden Eigenschaften der rechten und linken Hand waren hochkorreliert, die Eigenschaften innerhalb einer Hand im ganzen gesehen sehr schwach korreliert.
Von 1512 Interkorrelationen lagen 1387 Koefﬁzienten unter 0-6. Auffallend war die Héiuﬁgkeit
negativer Beziehungen zwischen Handgroﬁen-Faktoren und Beweglichkeit. Die vorgelegten
Ergebnisse werden unter Beriicksichtigung der methodischen Probleme den Ergebnissen vor
allem von Nichtmusiker-Untersuchungen gegeniibergestellt. Soweit vergleichbar, zeigt sich die
Tendenz hoherer Beweglichkeit bei Pianisten. Die Frage der Relevanz von Handgro13en- undBeweglichkeitsdaten bei fehlenden Muskelkraftdaten wird diskutiert. Die Moglichkeiten der
praktischen Nutzung der vorliegenden Daten fiir die Beurteilung der manuellen
Voraussetzungen eines Pianisten werden anhand eines biomechanischen Handproﬁls
veranschaulicht und es wird auf die Bedeutung der Daten fiir das Keyboard Design im
allgemeinen hingewiesen.

The pianists‘ handI3l$%%®@mn%¥Er;2twrokeae%%@@mn@@eoaEE@%%emocee

aansmoiwda.nomnﬁnﬁm.no%mmnﬁEMEHEe¢%mnoe%maeo
M7%®%ﬁ€T;Xt&$%ﬂM#%Mﬁ§?@H1%@&ﬁ€7;Xt®m%T£%Lt@

Enorumnmﬁenwfmﬁﬁnewceanoraoemﬁmméoensmﬁmwme
axawaeeaann.neneanrneasn.eonueaoaeeeunnnnanw
Tmnrmcasno
nnaennezmyoeanmninuuanmwoAeneasina@n<nx»@mwaeenn
I§l|5El5I75§%15?i’L7*:75§, Pi-0>iElEt:;.t§~ rile t,n>v'<€-E < r“._.tn>-sr.:O 200)t'§.x/<"‘/0.) 5 is 5 <Jlil|iiéjL'(Ermaiaoeouoxeoanseomommﬁmmntﬁ-MOPNEQEE.inonn.
m%o@W>n$ﬁLcRn#ﬁeaAn.%mﬁm%m@uEoan5oE%%ea@n.
Enmnanueowru.eeronunntrnaoawwnnuanemene.-An

nwfaiommeuoamenscoaeoueoannnemacnsns
mﬁﬂﬁneﬁmommumvnommmnmnAnscommmnuanerexioeéﬁ
Uiiﬁbizs

E$eE%@ﬁmie%Enmmm%oAnm.Hm@¥eo%aneneLTmmm%oen.
rm2omm%%@oE.Lmtwmmﬁmuermrnanorokaémﬁﬁeﬂﬁnoew
NNEROEEEELEAEO
eeexianoAeAoemnaauuxewenuaan.En?-enunroeeer

oﬁaaem%@@@nor-amnwcneoommencesAir-aaerlxiorn
annenaaeoeeneeaneeneaanenronnenwrant.-nnunna
nor-aoaﬁnemmiec