## 3 Results and Discussion  
Figure 5 presents a box and whiskers plot with the AROMs (in degrees) measured in Phase I of the experiment. The 27 performed repeated measures ANOVAs (one per recorded AROM) revealed statistically significant differences (Sig. \(\leq\) 0.01) between gloves in 10 out of 27 AROMs. Table 4 details the AROMs and the mean values for each data glove and values reported in the literature [18] for each specific AROMs in order to compare them. Figure 5: Box and whiskers plot of AROMs (deg) recorded for each participant with both gloves. Joint movements labelled as described in main text. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Task** & **Grasp** & **Description** \\ \hline A1 & Oblique/Cylindrical & Grab the door handle, turning it and releasing it. \\ \hline A2 & Pulp pinch/Lateral pinch & Taking the key from the table, introducing it into the lock, turning it and releasing it, leaving the key inside the lock. \\ \hline A3 & Cylindrical & Taking a bottle of water from the table, moving it between two points drawn in the table and releasing it. \\ \hline A4 & Five-finger pinch/cylindrical & Taking a glass of water from the table, holding it for few seconds and leaving it again on the table. \\ \hline A5 & Tripod pinch & Taking a pen from the table, writing the word “BIOMECANICA” in a sheet of paper and leaving it again on the table. \\ \hline A6 & Intermediate & Taking a knife and a fork from the table, cutting play dough (simulating a sausage) and leaving them again on the table. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Activities performed in the experiment, grasp type required and description. The statistically significant differences obtained are high, except in MCP4_A, where the difference is only 7.51\({}^{\circ}\), which is close to the glove sensitivity [1]. Most of the obtained AROM values using the VMG30 are far from the healthy hand AROMs, as observed in Table 4, and are present mainly in MCP flexion and extension. These differences may be attributable to the coefficients obtained from the calibration process in these joints, which may not be appropriate. We experienced several problems when placing the initial calibration accessories on the hand dorsum because of the wiring of the glove, which is bulky and not uniformly distributed, which might have affected the performance of the entire calibration. Figure 6 shows some accessories used to calibrate the data gloves, according to a previously validated protocol [1]. Figure 7 shows the differences between automatic detection (activation/deactivation of sensors) and visual analysis. Positive values mean delay of sensors regarding visual analysis, while negative values mean anticipation of sensors. The figure only provides difference values for the pressure sensors that were first activated in each task (to detect grasp) and the sensor that was last deactivated (to detect release). Sensors activated in between, and therefore not important to detect grasp or release, are shaded in grey. Sensors not activated during the task are not shaded (white cells). Differences lower than 0.5 s (absolute value) are shaded in green. Differences higher than 0.5 s (absolute value) are shaded in red.