Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
In-clinic validation of a smartphone-based finger tapping test for use in neurodegenerative and neurological populations
O’Connor M, Sanderson-Cimino ME, Li Z, Dhanam S, Sadarangani A, Downer J, Fregly R, Taylor J et al.. medRxiv, 2026-07-07
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Motor disturbances are common in neurologic and neurodegenerative syndromes. A standard motor speed and dexterity measure is the finger tapping test (FTT). The FTT has traditionally been administered in clinic using a mechanical FTT, limiting accessibility and early motor change quantification. This study assessed the validity of a smartphone app-based FTT, which may expand access and enable more frequent testing. Methods The cohort was diagnostically diverse, including participants with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal syndrome, primary progressive aphasia, multiple sclerosis, and clinically unimpaired controls. Participants completed a 20-second ALLFTD Mobile App (mApp)-FTT with each hand. Tapping speed metrics were extracted. Participants completed the gold-standard mechanical FTT, a neurologist-administered finger tapping exam, the PSP Rating Scale (PSPRS) and the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). Correlations assessed mApp-FTT and mechanical FTT relationships; regressions evaluated associations with neurologist-rated finger tapping impairment, PSPRS and UPDRS, adjusting for age and sex. Results The mApp-FTT showed moderate-to-strong correlations with the mechanical FTT (dominant: r=0.63, p<0.001; non-dominant: r=0.55, p<0.001). Taps per second were associated with PSPRS motor severity (dominant hand: std. β=-0.59, 95% CI [-0.91, -0.27], p<0.001) and the UPDRS (dominant hand: std. β=-0.41, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.00], p=0.049). Flight time was modestly associated with neurologist-rated finger tapping impairment (dominant hand: std. β=0.15, 95% CI [0.00, 0.29], p=0.044). Conclusion These findings support mApp-FTT validity as a measure of motor function across neurodegenerative conditions. Validation in longitudinal and unsupervised remote settings is warranted to understand scalability and evaluate change over time.
Key findings
- Results The mApp-FTT showed moderate-to-strong correlations with the mechanical FTT (dominant: r=0.63, p<0.001; non-dominant: r=0.55, p<0.001).
- Taps per second were associated with PSPRS motor severity (dominant hand: std. β=-0.59, 95% CI [-0.91, -0.27], p<0.001) and the UPDRS (dominant hand: std. β=-0.41, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.00], p=0.049).
- Flight time was modestly associated with neurologist-rated finger tapping impairment (dominant hand: std. β=0.15, 95% CI [0.00, 0.29], p=0.044).
- Conclusion These findings support mApp-FTT validity as a measure of motor function across neurodegenerative conditions.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 35 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 35 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 35 out of 100. |
| Total | 35 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
O’Connor, M., Sanderson-Cimino, M. E., Li, Z., Dhanam, S., Sadarangani, A., Downer, J., et al. (2026). In-clinic validation of a smartphone-based finger tapping test for use in neurodegenerative and neurological populations. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.25.26356467
Vancouver
O’Connor M, Sanderson-Cimino ME, Li Z, Dhanam S, Sadarangani A, Downer J, et al. In-clinic validation of a smartphone-based finger tapping test for use in neurodegenerative and neurological populations. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.06.25.26356467.
BibTeX
@article{oconnor2026-880d8e6d,
author = {O’Connor, M. and Sanderson-Cimino, M. E. and Li, Z. and Dhanam, S. and Sadarangani, A. and Downer, J. and Fregly, R. and Taylor, J. and others},
title = {{In-clinic validation of a smartphone-based finger tapping test for use in neurodegenerative and neurological populations}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.06.25.26356467},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.25.26356467}
}
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.