## 2 Materials and Methods
### Phase I  
Three participants with different hand sizes and ages (Participant 1: 174 mm, 49 years; Participant 2: 196 mm, 48 years; Participant 3: 176 mm, 44 years) volunteered to participate in Phase I. Since the aim of Phase I was to compare both glove kinematic recordings in extreme postures but not extract normative kinematic data, a larger sample of participants was considered unnecessary. In this phase, in order to assess the kinematic accuracy of VMG30, the active ranges of motion (AROMs) of 16 hand joints angles were recorded with both gloves, recording a total of 27 AROMs per participant, corresponding to maximum and minimum values of the 16 hand joint angles (except carpometacarpal joint flexion/extension and finger abductions/adductions, where only maximum flexion and maximum abduction values were considered, see Figure 1 and Table 2). To do so, participants were firstly asked to perform a reference posture with their flat hand lying on a table, with the fingers and thumb together. Joint angles for a given posture were computed as rotated angles from those of this reference posture. Then, participants were asked to perform ten static postures that forced participants to achieve the active extreme postures of groups of joints, therefore allowing the recording of their AROMs (Figure 3 and Table 2). After the AROMs recording, joint angles were computed using the calibration coefficients obtained for each glove, according to a previous study [1], and using a custom angle calculation code [16]. Then, the joint angles obtained from both gloves were filtered using a 2 nd order two-way low pass Butterworth filter, with a cut-off frequency of 5 Hz. The AROM for each participant and joint was computed from these filtered angles as the maximum values obtained for each DoF across all recorded postures. Then, AROMs obtained for each joint and participant when using the VMG30 and CyberGlove were compared by performing 27 repeated measures ANOVAs (Sig. \(\leq\) 0.01), one per recorded AROM.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l} \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Posture**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Active Range of Motion Assessed**} \\ \hline A & Max. thumb CMC flexion (CMC1\_F) \\ \hline B & Max. thumb CMC extension (CMC1\_E) \\ \hline C & Max. thumb CMC abduction (CMC1\_A) \\ \hline D & Max. thumb interphalangeal joint (IP1\_F) and metacarpophalangeal joint \\  & flexion (MCP1\_F) \\ \hline D & Max. proximal interphalangeal joint flexion of index to little fingers (PIP2\_F-PIP5\_F) \\ \hline E & Max. metacarpophalangeal joint flexion of index to little fingers (MCP2\_F-MCP5\_F) \\ \hline F & Max. metacarpophalangeal joint and proximal interphalangeal joint extension of \\  & index to little fingers (PIP2\_E-PIP5\_E) (MCP2\_E-MCP5\_E) \\ \hline G1 & Max. abduction between index and middle fingers (MCP2-3A) \\ \hline G2 & Max. abduction between middle and ring fingers (MCP3-4\_A) \\ \hline G3 & Max. abduction between ring and little fingers (MCP4-5\_A) \\ \hline H & Max. flexion of carpometacarpal joint (CMC5\_F) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Active range of motion assessed in each recording presented in Figure 3. Joints: IP1 for thumb interphalangeal joint, PIP for proximal interphalangeal joints of fingers, MCP for metacarpophalangeal joints, CMC1 for carpometacarpal joint of thumb, CMC5 for palmar arch resulting from flexion/extension of carpometacarpal joints of ring and little fingers. Nomenclature: _F for flexion, _E for extension, _A for abduction; 1 to 5, digits from thumb to little.