## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**JOINT** & **CyberGlove AROM** & **VMG30** & **Values Reported in** \\  & & **AROM** & **Literature [18]** \\ IP1\_F & 82.88\({}^{\circ}\) & 115.80\({}^{\circ}\) & 102.1\({}^{\circ}\) \\ IP1\_E & \(-32.54^{\circ}\) & 8.01\({}^{\circ}\) & \(-12.4^{\circ}\) \\ MCP1\_F & \(28.16^{\circ}\) & 47.65\({}^{\circ}\) & 26.1\({}^{\circ}\) \\ MCP1\_E & \(-24.13^{\circ}\) & \(-19.39^{\circ}\) & \(-21.0^{\circ}\) \\ CMC1\_F & \(30.14^{\circ}\) & 19.34\({}^{\circ}\) & 42.10\({}^{\circ}\) \\ CMC1\_E & \(-42.66^{\circ}\) & \(-6.41^{\circ}\) & \(-26.10^{\circ}\) \\ PIP2\_F & \(112.71^{\circ}\) & \(88.52^{\circ}\) & 108.80\({}^{\circ}\) \\ PIP2\_E & \(-1.69^{\circ}\) & \(-0.02^{\circ}\) & \(-3.80^{\circ}\) \\ MCP2\_F & \(75.26^{\circ}\) & \(127.89^{\circ}\) & 70.60\({}^{\circ}\) \\ MCP2\_E & \(-19.53^{\circ}\) & \(-9.26^{\circ}\) & \(-25.30^{\circ}\) \\ PIP3\_F & \(98.45^{\circ}\) & \(86.32^{\circ}\) & 96.60\({}^{\circ}\) \\ PIP3\_E & \(-6.32^{\circ}\) & \(0.69^{\circ}\) & \(-6.70^{\circ}\) \\ MCP3\_F & \(81.72^{\circ}\) & \(103.88^{\circ}\) & 73.60\({}^{\circ}\) \\ MCP3\_E & \(-32.61^{\circ}\) & \(0.10^{\circ}\) & \(-23.10^{\circ}\) \\ PIP4\_F & \(105.28^{\circ}\) & \(105.84^{\circ}\) & \(102.80^{\circ}\) \\ PIP4\_E & \(-8.08^{\circ}\) & \(-1.48^{\circ}\) & \(-9.90^{\circ}\) \\ MCP4\_F & \(75.11^{\circ}\) & \(223.05^{\circ}\) & \(68.40^{\circ}\) \\ MCP4\_E & \(-35.76^{\circ}\) & \(-2.14^{\circ}\) & \(-21.90^{\circ}\) \\ \hline PIP5\_F & \(102.62^{\circ}\) & \(99.58^{\circ}\) & \(89.90^{\circ}\) \\ PIP5\_E & \(-7.16^{\circ}\) & \(-2.66^{\circ}\) & \(-7.80^{\circ}\) \\ MCP5\_F & \(69.38^{\circ}\) & \(166.25^{\circ}\) & \(68.40^{\circ}\) \\ MCP5\_E & \(-38.59^{\circ}\) & \(-31.93^{\circ}\) & \(-21.90^{\circ}\) \\ CMC5\_F & \(34.95^{\circ}\) & \(12.93^{\circ}\) & \(29.60^{\circ}\) \\ CMC1\_A & \(20.05^{\circ}\) & \(23.91^{\circ}\) & \(19.70^{\circ}\) \\ MCP2\_3\_A & \(35.50^{\circ}\) & \(34.71^{\circ}\) & \(35.20^{\circ}\) \\ MCP3\_A+A & \(26.99^{\circ}\) & \(19.48^{\circ}\) & \(25.70^{\circ}\) \\ MCP4\_5\_A & \(31.13^{\circ}\) & \(-51.17^{\circ}\) & \(28.4^{\circ}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean values of AROMs, as well as reported values in literature [18]. Statistically significant differences (Sig. \(\leq\) 0.01) after the repeated measures ANOVAs between the values obtained using CyberGlove and VMG30 are shaded in grey. Differences in visual analysis were higher than 1 s on three occasions: when opening a door (A1), grasping a pen (A5), and releasing a knife (A6), due to delay / anticipation (A5 and A6) or activation without any contact (A1). Differences were higher than 0.5 s on eight occasions. These differences are high, taking into account that the obtained response time for visual stimuli in the literature varies between 200 ms and 300 ms [19; 20], and considering that in these experiments the observer is previewing the full task and can anticipate events, therefore reducing its reaction time. Furthermore, some sensors were frequently activated (s1, s2, s3), while others were rarely or not activated at all (s4, s10) (Figure 7). The only tasks where grasp and release were correctly detected in both participants were using a key (A2) and taking a glass (A4). The sensor most used to detect grasp was s1 (located at thumb fingertip) in both participants. The most used to detect release was also s1 for participant 1 (hand length = 174 mm), but it was s2 (located at index fingertip) for participant 2 (hand length = 196 mm). It may be attributable to a glove bad fit, which may not allow correctly locating fingertips below the pressure sensor location. It can also be observed that sensors s6 (thenar area of palm), s7 (index and middle interdigital area of palm), s8 (middle finger proximal phalanx), and s9 (ring and little interdigital area of palm) were mainly activated only in participants with larger hands. These results allow drawing important conclusions regarding the sensors' location within the glove.