## 4 Discussion  
Table 2 shows the experimental results on 40 normal people who are 20-29 years old. The AVG \(\pm\) STD of measurements from dominant hands was 63.2 \(\pm\) 7.6, 64.0 \(\pm\) 10.5, and 63.6 \(\pm\) 9.1 for female, male, and all participants, respectively. These values approached the population AVG and STDev values, which are 63.4 \(\pm\) 7.9 s (Appendix A) in reference [13]. Similarly, the AVG \(\pm\) STDev values of the measurements from non-dominant hands also come close to those of the population values. Therefore, the measurements on dominant and non-dominant hands comply with the population mean value that is reported from the manual GPT device [13].  
On the other hand, in Table 2, the \(p\)-value of the significant difference between the measurements mean and the population mean on dominant hands was 0.91, 0.82, and 0.90, while it was 0.72, 0.74, and 0.62 for non-dominant hands of female, male, and all participants, in order. All these values reject the hypothesis that there could be a significant difference between calculations from the proposed electronic GPT device (Figures 2 and 3) and the commercially accepted manual GPT device (Figure 1). Therefore, the pilot results in Table 2 rationalize the statement that \"the proposed electronic GPT model is technically correct\".  
Figures 4 and 5 sustain the preceding discussion and findings. They showed that measurements from the suggested electronic GPT were within the zone of AVG \(\pm\) STDev interval of the population's calculations by the manual GPT device.  
On the other hand, Table 3 illustrates the obtained results related to measurement tests on some volunteers suffering from neurology disorders such as Ataxia, Autism, Stroke, or Cerebral Palsy. The table also demonstrates calculations on volunteers suffering from bone accidents. For both types of disorders (i.e., nerve or bone accidents), the calculations were outside the population mean value limits of normal people (i.e., reference values from GPT devices in Appendix A), indicating the presence of hand dexterity [13]. The clinical analysis of each situation is beyond the scope of this paper. These results, however, could rationalize another proof about the feasibility of the usage of the suggested electronic GPT prototype by patients.  
There are two prospective advantages of the suggested electronic GPT. First, the device can be used at home without the supervision of a physiotherapist, allowing patients, by themselves, to observe their medical situations, such as the progression from treatment. The therapists normally use a stopwatch so discomfort or mistakes may occur, which leads to repeat the test. Therefore, the second advantage is the possibility to use the electronic GPT at physiotherapy clinics, minimizing discomfort to both the patient and the therapist [28]. Finally, it may be of importance to note that the prototype can be similarly designed as the PPT or NHPT devices' configuration in Figure 1.  
However, the encouraging results in Tables 2 and 3 were only from the pilot study. Therefore, they need to be verified on a large number of volunteers, which is not easily available, to include different groups of ages and different medical conditions. In addition, the matter of importance would be the price effectiveness of the suggested electronic GPT. The predictable cost includes the prices of the microcontroller, electronic switches, and the fabrication of the wooden box.  
Unfortunately, no similar studies were reported in the literature to compare with the results in this paper, to the best of our knowledge.