Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 21;16(7):e0253185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253185

Water-immersion finger-wrinkling improves grip efficiency in handling wet objects

Nick J Davis 1,*
Editor: Markus Lappe2
PMCID: PMC8294484  PMID: 34288934

Abstract

For most people, immersing their hands in water leads to wrinkling of the skin of the fingertips. This phenomenon is very striking, yet we know little about why it occurs. It has been proposed that the wrinkles act to distribute water away from the contact surfaces of the fingertip, meaning that wet objects can be grasped more readily. This study examined the coordination between the grip force used to hold an object and the load force exerted on it, when participants used dry or wrinkly fingers, or fingers that were wet but not wrinkly. The results showed that wrinkly fingers reduce the grip force needed to grip a wet object, bringing that force in line with what is needed for handling a dry object. The results suggest that enhancing grip force efficiency in watery environments is a possible adaptive reason for the development of wrinkly fingers.

Introduction

When human hands and feet are immersed in water, over time the skin becomes wrinkled. The wrinkling is mainly confined to the pads of the fingertips and to the toes. Explanations for the wrinkling of the skin include a passive response of the skin to immersion, or an active process that creates the wrinkles for a functional purpose. There is overwhelming evidence that finger-wrinkling is an active process. The small blood vessels of the fingertip constrict, which creates valleys in the skin surface, triggered by water entering sweat pores [1]. Note that a passive explanation would usually assume that water absorbs into the skin, pushing up ridges. This vasoconstriction appears to occur most readily at a temperature of around 40° Celsius, or the temperature of a warm bath [2]. People with autonomic neurological conditions including Parkinson’s, cystic fibrosis, congestive heart failure or diabetic neuropathy may show abnormal or asymmetric wrinkling in the affected parts of the body [35].

Given that finger-wrinkling is actively maintained, the natural question is why this would happen. It has been suggested that active finger-wrinkling is an adaptation to aid grasping of objects in watery environments. In order to grasp an object, the grip force used to stabilise the object must be enough to balance the load force, which is generated by the mass of the object and is affected by movements of the object, and must take into account the friction of the interface between the fingertips and the object surface [68]. Put simply, a wet stone needs to be gripped harder than the same stone when it is dry, as the friction of the contact surface is reduced due to the water. Many authors have linked the wrinkling of the fingertips to this grip- and load-force coordination, with the suggestion that the wrinkles act in the same way as the treads on a car tyre, which help to channel water and to provide ridges of drier contact surfaces on the road [9].

If finger wrinkles do indeed aid grasping, we would expect to see this reflected in the grip force used to manipulate an object. Grip and load force are tightly coupled in both static and dynamic grasps. In consciously-initiated movements grip force changes in parallel with the change in load, and slightly precedes it, suggesting a degree of planning of grip force to cope with the changes of load induced by the inertia of the grasped object [6]. Grip force dynamics typically reflect the dynamics of the load, with the rate of change of grip force tracking the developing load force when the load is predictable, and adjust rapidly when the load changes unpredictably [10]. Frictional properties do not appear to be consciously perceivable during passive touch [11], suggesting that effective integration of information into the grasp plan requires either active exploration of the surface, or higher-level information such as recall of previously-sensed information. The influence of prior information in grip force programming leads to perceptual illusions, such as the size-weight illusion [12].

The purpose of the study was to determine if water-induced fingertip wrinkles give an advantage in manipulating a held object with wet hands, compared to when the fingertips are wet but not wrinkled. Specifically, the wrinkles should afford a more efficient grip force, compared to the load induced by manipulating the object. In this study grip and load force was measured in a task where participants gripped an instrument between finger and thumb, and used this to track a load force target as it moved across a screen. It was hypothesised that participants with wrinkly fingers would be more efficient in their grip force than participants with wet but non-wrinkly fingers.

Materials and methods

Ethics

All data reported here were collected while the author was in residence at the Science Museum in London, UK. Ethical approval was granted both by the author’s then institution, the Department of Psychology, Swansea University, UK, and by the Science Museum. Participants aged 18 or over gave written informed consent to take part in the study, while written parental consent was given in the case of people under 18.

Participants

After giving informed consent, participants allocated themselves to one of three conditions: these were ‘Dry’ for people who used dry fingers when taking part, ‘Wet’ for people who briefly dipped their fingers in water prior to data collection, or ‘Wrinkly’ for people whose fingers were wrinkled during the experiment. Participants were therefore not blind to their experimental condition, but were naïve to the expected findings. 546 people initially took part in the experiment.

Procedure

To generate wrinkled fingers, participants immersed their preferred hand in a bath of water kept at 30° Celsius, until the fingertips were visibly wrinkled to the satisfaction of the experimenter. To collect grip- and load-force data, two load cells were linked together such that the participant gripped one load cell between the finger and thumb of their preferred hand (NovaTech F255, NovaTech Measurements Ltd., UK), and could push or pull the second load cell vertically (NovaTech F256). The arrangement of the load cells is shown in Fig 1. The load cells were connected to a laptop that displayed the output of the vertical load, using a custom program written in Matlab (The Mathworks, Natick, MA). During a trial, participants were asked to follow a trace that appeared on the screen of the laptop. The target trace appeared as a solid blue line that swept left-to-right across the screen, and the instantaneous output of the vertical load cell was shown as a red circle, with the ‘history’ of this vertical force shown on the screen as pale dots. Each trial lasted 15 sec. The target trace was static at 0.5 N for 3.5 sec, then rose to 2 N over the course of 3 sec, then was static at 2 N for 4 sec, and dropped to 0.5 N over 3 sec, where it remained for the rest of the trial. Participants each contributed eight trials. Data from the both load cells were digitised at 1000 Hz and stored for later analysis.

Fig 1. Picture of the equipment in use.

Fig 1

The participant is gripping a load cell between finger and thumb. The participant’s task is to pull up on the second load cell to match a force trace that appears on the laptop monitor. The current load force is shown as a red circle, and the history of the participant’s force is shown as a trail of green dots.

Data analysis

The grip- and load-force data and the target trace were aligned in time, and the load cell data were low-pass filtered with a second-order Butterworth filter set at 20 Hz. Task performance was assessed by determining the correlation between the target force and the load trace, and subjecting these values to a one-way analysis of variance between groups. The primary measure of interest was the ratio of the grip force to the load force. A segment of 3,000 samples (3 sec) was taken from the static phase of the lift. The mean load force and the mean grip force were taken from this time range, and a mean grip:load force ratio was taken for each participant. These measures were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance, with fingertip condition as a between-subjects factor (Wet, Dry or Wrinkled).

The lag between the change of grip force and the change of load force was also measured, using a cross-correlation between the two traces with a maximum lag of ±150 ms. The rate of change of the grip force trace was assessed by fitting a linear slope to the trace in two windows: between 4 sec and 6 sec into the trial (“attack phase”), and between 11 sec and 13 sec (“decay phase”). These data were also subjected to one-way analysis of variance.

Individual trials were excluded from analysis if the load force trace did not significantly differ from 0 N in the second half of the static hold (suggesting that the participant was not following the target), or if the grip force was more than ten times greater than the load force (suggesting an excessively high grip). A participant was excluded from analysis if more than three trials were excluded based on these criteria.

Statistical analyses were performed within Matlab, with the threshold for statistical significance set at alpha < 0.05. Bartlett’s test (Matlab function ‘vartestn’) was used to test for homogeneity of variance prior to running the analyses of variance. In the one case of violation of this test, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used instead. Post-hoc tests used Matlab’s ‘multcompare’ function, which uses the Tukey-Kramer HSD correction for multiple comparisons after an analysis of variance, or a mean ranks test after the Kruskal-Wallis test had been used.

Data accessibility

All raw and processed data files from this experiment are available at Figshare.com: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14414780.v4. All analyses were conducted in Matlab, and the analysis routine is available in the same repository.

Results

After automatic analysis of the force traces, 516 participants’ data were analysed. Of these participants, 309 identified as female and 217 as male, and the mean age was 17.7 (SD 13.1). 55 participants chose to use their left hand and 461 their right. 231 participants chose to take part in the Dry condition, 74 in the Wet, and 211 in the Wrinkly condition.

Fig 2 shows the mean traces for the three different conditions. The participants’ target force is shown as a black line. The load force traces follow this target line reasonably well, which was expected as the load force was visible to participants as a cursor. The grip force exceeds the load force, as expected. However there is a clear separation between the three traces, with participants with wet fingers using more fingertip force than those who used dry fingers, and with the wrinkly fingers lying between the two.

Fig 2. Comparison of performance across conditions.

Fig 2

Mean grip force (thinner traces) and load force (thicker traces) when participants tracked a load weight target (black line). Participants with wrinkled fingers produced a grip force that did not differ from that used by people with dry fingers in the static hold phase, however people with wet but non-wrinkly fingers used a significantly higher amount of grip. The shaded area indicates the pointwise ±1 standard error of each mean trace. Lines below the trace indicate the attack phase (A) of the trial, the static phase (S) and the decay phase (D).

The correlation between the participants’ load force and the target force was good, with no differences between groups [F(2,513) = 0.953, p = 0.386], and with a mean Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.628, suggesting that the participants’ primary task was executed successfully. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for differences among the conditions in grip:load ratio, as the variances of the groups were not equal according to Bartlett’s test (p = 0.016). This revealed that the mean of the ratio of grip to load force was different between the conditions [χ2(2) = 24.74, p<0.0001]. Post hoc comparisons found that the ratio was significantly higher for Wet than for Dry (p<0.0001) or for Wrinkly (p = 0.0026), but that Dry and Wrinkly did not differ from each other (p = 0.0667). There was a small but significant correlation of this ratio with the age of the participant [r(514) = -0.149, p<0.001]. The ratio declined by 0.014 per year of age, although the variance explained by a linear regression was very low (R2 = 0.022). Performing this latter analysis on the conditions separately revealed that a slightly better fit was generated using a logarithmic function, which was significant only for the Dry (R2 = 0.023, p = 0.023) and the Wet (R2 = 0.074, p = 0.021) conditions, but not for Wrinkly. This difference hints at a nonlinear relationship between grip:load ratio and age (I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this analysis).

The lag between the change in grip force and the change in load force was not significantly different between the three groups of participants [F(2,513) = 0.359, p = 0.699], but the overall lag was significantly different from simultaneity, with GF leading LF by 22.62 ms. The lag between grip and load force declined significantly with age [r(514) = -0.338, p<0.001], with the lead of grip over load change declining by 1.36 ms for each year of age, although the variance explained by a linear regression of these values was low (R2 = 0.114).

The rate of change of grip force was assessed by fitting a simple linear function to the early part of the trial where the target load force was rising (attack phase), and to the later phase where the target was dropping (decay phase). Grip force in the dry condition in the attack phase rose at 0.409 N/sec, which is comparable with the rise of target force of 0.5 N/sec. The slope in the wet condition was significantly greater, at 0.676 N/sec. The slope for the wrinkly condition was intermediate between the two, at 0.501 N/sec, and was not significantly different to either. For the decay phase the grip force trace declined at a rate of -0.345 N/sec, compared to a target of -0.5 N/sec. Participants with wet fingers reduced their force significantly more rapidly, at 0.489 N/sec. People with wrinkly fingers were again intermediate between the two, at 0.690 N/sec, and were significantly different to both wet and dry fingers.

The data for these slope calculations are plotted in Fig 3. It is clear from the boxplots that there is considerable variation in participants’ slopes in all conditions. Fig 4 illustrates the relationship between grip and load force by plotting these variables against each other. Fig 4 shows the grand mean trace for all participants within each condition. The target force rises and falls linearly between 0.5 and 2.0 N. Participants in the relatively easier Dry condition follow this linear rise and fall reasonably closely, with a slight over-grip (upward shift). The more difficult Wet condition, where the object is more slippery in the grasp, involves a greater safety margin, and a steeper rise in grip force to arrive at a higher margin at the point of highest load force. The Wrinkly condition lies between these two, with a safety margin and rate of change that is intermediate between the Dry and the Wet condition.

Fig 3. Rate of change of grip force.

Fig 3

Boxplot of the rate of change of grip force in the ‘attack’ phase (A) where the target force is rising, and in the ‘decay’ phase (B) where target force is declining.

Fig 4. Relationship between grip and load force in Dry, Wet and Wrinkly conditions.

Fig 4

This illustrates the grand mean of the grip and load forces for the whole duration of the trail, minus the first 1000 ms. The target force is shown as a dashed line. The three grip force traces lie above this line, indicating the safety margin. The ‘easiest’ condition, Dry (blue trace) follows the target force most closely. The ‘hardest’, Wet (green trace), shows a higher safety margin, and looser coordination. Participants with Wrinkly fingers (red trace) lie between the two.

Discussion

There is now converging evidence that finger-wrinkling is an adaptation that aids object manipulation in wet environments [9]. This study has shown that grip efficiency, or the amount by which grip force exceeds the load exerted by the object, is improved when a person has wet and wrinkly fingers, compared to when their fingers are wet but not wrinkly. This ratio of grip force to load force is not significantly different between wrinkly and dry fingers, nor does the relative time difference between the rise of grip force and the rise of load force. Both the grip-to-load ratio and the time difference correlated weakly but significantly with the participants’ age. The rate of increase and decrease of grip force was low for dry fingers and high for wet fingers, and for wrinkly fingers was intermediate between the two.

Grip and load force coordination is an important aspect of object handling. The ability to generate the correct amount of grip force for a given load means that the minimum necessary amount of energy is used by the muscles that control the fingers and hands, and means that objects are less likely to be dropped or to be crushed. Efficient grip force coordination is seen in many extant primates, and is likely to have evolved early in the primate lineage [13]. The grip force required to stabilise a wet object is greater than the force required for a dry object, since the coefficient of friction of the digit-object interface is reduced [8]. It would therefore benefit an animal to gain an advantage in handling wet objects, as this would increase success in hunting and foraging in watery environments. The skin of the fingertip is already adapted for regulation of moisture at the contact surface [14]. Fingertip wrinkles would seem to afford an enhanced advantage in object handling, and may plausibly aid travel and clambering in wet areas, especially if combined with wrinkled toes.

A previous study of object manipulation with wrinkled fingers found that wet objects were moved more quickly when the fingers were wrinkly compared to dry [15]. Importantly, there is no difference in tactile sensitivity in wrinkled fingers compared to dry [16], meaning that people are not trading off acuity for friction at the fingertip. It is therefore reasonable to wonder why healthy people do not have permanently wrinkled fingers. The answer presumably lies in the changes in the mechanical properties of the finger tissues, where there may be lower shear resistance when the finger is wrinkled [17]. Previous studies have also suggested differences in manipulation across the lifespan [1820]; the present results show age-related effects, although they are rather weak in this sample. Our journey through life leads us to develop strategies for handling familiar and unfamiliar objects, so it seems likely that strategic changes, along with sensory and motor changes, will affect how children and adults perform tasks with handheld objects [21].

The results presented here should be read in the context of the experiment itself. The age distribution in this sample was rather low, reflecting the public engagement setting of the data collection. Although the effects of age in the data reported here were very small, they were nevertheless statistically significant, so this should be taken into account when comparing these results with others. There may also be effects on performance from inter-individual differences in hand size, in levels of subcutaneous fat, or in lifestyle or genetic factors that were not measured here. Indeed the public environment made it impractical to measure fingertip sensitivity to static sensations or to slips, which may affect individual grip strategies. Finally the experiment only tested one target force pattern and one fingertip contact surface; it is likely that changing the dynamics of the load and the properties of the object would affect grip force coordination [6,22]. Future studies should consider the effect of finger wrinkles on unpredictably changing loads, as the present results do not show a clear separation between the conditions on grip force dynamics. An example of a situation where slippery objects move dynamically would be when a person hunts fish by hand; hand-fishing has been important in low-technology cultures into current times [23], and a fish-rich diet is hypothesised to have promoted the rapid increase in brain size during hominid evolution [24].

In summary, this experiment investigated fine motor coordination when the fingers are affected by water-induced finger-wrinkling. Finger-wrinkling improves grip force coordination when compared to fingers that are wet but not wrinkly, and brings the performance to a level comparable with dry fingers. These results help to explain why humans and their close primate relatives may have developed finger-wrinkling as an adaptation to aid locomotion and foraging in wet environments.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the staff of the Science Museum, London, for access to the Live Science gallery. Particular thanks are due to Georgie Ariaratnam, and to the many visitors who took part in, or discussed, the experiment.

Data Availability

All raw and processed data files from this experiment are available at Figshare.com: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14414780.v4. All analyses were conducted in Matlab, and the analysis routine is available in the same repository.

Funding Statement

The author received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Wilder-Smith EP, Chow A. Water-immersion wrinkling is due to vasoconstriction. Muscle Nerve. 2003;27(3):307–11. doi: 10.1002/mus.10323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cales L, Weber RA. Effect of water temperature on skin wrinkling. J Hand Surg Am. 1997;22(4):747–9. doi: 10.1016/s0363-5023(97)80141-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Djaldetti R, Melamed E, Gadoth N. Abnormal skin wrinkling in the less affected side in hemiparkinsonism-a possible test for sympathetic dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease. Biomed Pharmacother. 2001;55(8):475–8. doi: 10.1016/s0753-3322(01)00088-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kamran H, Salciccioli L, Lazar JM. Reduced water induced skin wrinkling in congestive heart failure. Clin Auton Res. 2011;21(5):361–2. doi: 10.1007/s10286-010-0109-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Clark CV, Pentland B, Ewing DJ, Clarke BF. Decreased skin wrinkling in diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1984;7(3):224–7. doi: 10.2337/diacare.7.3.224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Flanagan J, Tresilian J. Grip-load force coupling: A general control strategy for transporting objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1994;20:944–57. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.5.944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Flanagan J, Wing A. Modulation of grip force with load force during point-to-point arm movements. Experimental Brain Research. 1993;95:131–43. doi: 10.1007/BF00229662 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cadoret G, Smith AM. Friction, not texture, dictates grip forces used during object manipulation. J Neurophysiol. 1996;75(5):1963–9. doi: 10.1152/jn.1996.75.5.1963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Changizi M, Weber R, Kotecha R, Palazzo J. Are wet-induced wrinkled fingers primate rain treads? Brain Behav Evol. 2011;77(4):286–90. doi: 10.1159/000328223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cole KJ, Abbs JH. Grip force adjustments evoked by load force perturbations of a grasped object. J Neurophysiol. 1988;60(4):1513–22. doi: 10.1152/jn.1988.60.4.1513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Khamis H, Afzal H, Sanchez J, Vickery R, Wiertlewski M, Redmond S, et al. Friction sensing mechanisms for perception and motor control: Passive touch without sliding may not provide perceivable frictional information. Journal of Neurophysiology. in press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Buckingham G. Getting a grip on heaviness perception: a review of weight illusions and their probable causes. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(6):1623–9. doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-3926-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Feix T, Kivell TL, Pouydebat E, Dollar AM. Estimating thumb-index finger precision grip and manipulation potential in extant and fossil primates. J R Soc Interface. 2015;12(106). doi: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yum SM, Baek IK, Hong D, Kim J, Jung K, Kim S, et al. Fingerprint ridges allow primates to regulate grip. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2001055117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kareklas K, Nettle D, Smulders TV. Water-induced finger wrinkles improve handling of wet objects. Biol Lett. 2013;9(2):20120999. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Haseleu J, Omerbašić D, Frenzel H, Gross M, Lewin GR. Water-induced finger wrinkles do not affect touch acuity or dexterity in handling wet objects. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e84949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084949 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yin J, Gerling GJ, Chen X. Mechanical modeling of a wrinkled fingertip immersed in water. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(4):1487–96. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.10.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gilles M, Wing A. Age-Related Changes in Grip Force and Dynamics of Hand Movement. Journal of Motor Behavior. 2003;35:79–85. doi: 10.1080/00222890309602123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lindberg P, Ody C, Feydy A, Maier MA. Precision in isometric precision grip force is reduced in middle-aged adults. Exp Brain Res. 2009;193(2):213–24. doi: 10.1007/s00221-008-1613-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Forssberg H, Eliasson AC, Kinoshita H, Johansson RS, Westling G. Development of human precision grip. I: Basic coordination of force. Exp Brain Res. 1991;85(2):451–7. doi: 10.1007/BF00229422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Voelcker-Rehage C, Alberts JL. Age-related changes in grasping force modulation. Exp Brain Res. 2005;166(1):61–70. doi: 10.1007/s00221-005-2342-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Flanagan J, Wing A, Allison S, Spenceley A. Effects of surface texture on weight perception when lifting objects with a precision grip. Perception & Psychophysics. 1995;57:282–90. doi: 10.3758/bf03213054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Weisler M, Bollt R, Findlater A. Prehistoric fishing strategies on the makatea island of Rurutu. Archaeology in Oceania. 2010;45:130–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Crawford MA, Bloom M, Broadhurst CL, Schmidt WF, Cunnane SC, Galli C, et al. Evidence for the unique function of docosahexaenoic acid during the evolution of the modern hominid brain. Lipids. 1999;34 Suppl:S39–47. doi: 10.1007/BF02562227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Markus Lappe

19 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-04649

Water-immersion finger-wrinkling improves grip efficiency in handling wet objects

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Davis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript has been seen by two expert reviewers. Their comments are attached. Reviewer 2 was entirely positive. Reviewer 1 had some major reservations. I invite you submit a major revision that addresses all comments of Reviewer 1. These include especially the framing of the research question, the description of the methods and results, and the analysis of age groups.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Markus Lappe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript deals with the relationship between grip force and load force of a simple finger force movement under three conditions: dry fingers (reference condition), wet fingers and wrinkling fingers. The author shows that in the wet condition, a significantly higher grip force is developed in the load task than in the dry condition. Interestingly, the wrinkling fingers condition results in a higher grip force than the reference condition, but lower than with wet fingers.

The work is of interest because of the number of participants analysed (N=516). Nevertheless, I have several concerns about the manuscript that need detailed and thoroughly revision. The most important are the following:

1) The research question(s) is not precisely stated nor justified.

2) The paper looks at a very heterogeneous age group. Considering the data provided by the author, the range is 2 - 71 years. This is neither in anatomical-physiological nor in psychological-cognitive sense a uniform group from whose behaviour one can draw general conclusions. Considering the age range, the assumption of a linear relationship between grip/load ratio and age is worth considering.

3) Why were characteristics of touch sensitivity not measured? There is psycho-physical and anatomical evidence for age-related differences.

4) The description of the methodology is insufficient. Which statistical tests were used, which post-hoc tests, which correction procedures for unequal numbers of participants (e.g. Dry=231, Wet=72, Wrinkly=211)?

The description of the figures is insufficient, the legends are incomplete and contain commented parts that belong in the discussion. What is the meaning of the coloured areas in Fig. 2? How was the average calculated? Is it the mean of all valid trials or is it the mean of the subjects' individual averages? In the latter case, how was intra-individual variability considered when calculating the averages (see age distribution)?

In which interval were the data for Fig. 4 calculated? What does the inter-individual variability look like?

Reviewer #2: This is a simple and clear experiment performed on a high number of individuals. It is aimed at describing the usefulness of finger wrinkles evoked by hand immersion in water.

The study shows that wrinkled fingers exert better grip force coordination than wet fingers without wrinkles. The performance with wrinkles is closest to dry fingers than to wet and wrinkleless fingers. Wrinkly fingers reduce the grip force required to grasp objects, indeed participants with wet fingers used more fingertip force than participants with dry fingers, while participants with wrinkly fingers lied in between. Evolutionary considerations in the discussion open the field to different scientific domains.

Although I see some limitations of the study, most of them acknowledged in the manuscript, I think this work is fresh and interesting. A positive aspect is the number of participants (more than 500). A nice evolution along this line would be to test the same task in the same individuals in the 3 different experimental situations, rather than 3 groups of participants, each one involved in only one task.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 21;16(7):e0253185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253185.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


14 Apr 2021

Reviewer #1

The reviewer makes some excellent points, which are both detailed and thoughtful. I am very grateful for these comments, which I think have led to an improved manuscript. Where I have made additions to the manuscript in response to Reviewer #1’s comments, I have highlighted these in yellow in the revised manuscript. Note that I have also updated the analysis script that is filed with the data in the online repository.

1) The research question(s) is not precisely stated nor justified.

I agree that the research question is not completely clear. In the final paragraph of the Introduction I have clarified the purpose of the experiment. I believe that the experiment is well-justified in the preceding paragraphs, where I highlight the state of existing knowledge about wrinkled fingers, and touch on the relevant findings in grip- and load-force coordination. I had also planned for this work to speak to the position of skilled motor action in the evolution of the human lineage (as suggested in the Changizi “rain treads” paper), however I now realise that the supporting evidence on finger-wrinkles in non-human relatives is not available.

2) The paper looks at a very heterogeneous age group. Considering the data provided by the author, the range is 2 - 71 years. This is neither in anatomical-physiological nor in psychological-cognitive sense a uniform group from whose behaviour one can draw general conclusions. Considering the age range, the assumption of a linear relationship between grip/load ratio and age is worth considering.

I agree that the data here covers a wide range of ages, as well as other relevant demographics (as acknowledged in the Discussion). It is certainly true that grip- and load-force coordination changes through the lifespan, and I also touched on this (briefly) in the Discussion. The reviewer makes the very good point that we might not expect a linear relationship to hold between these measures when looking at such a diverse cohort. However I did not have any reason to hypothesise any other form of relationship either, so I planned to use the simplest possible analysis to capture what I suspected would be the linear change in the middle years. It turns out that the age effects were rather small, and not very surprising (young children were worse, but not much worse). However I included the analysis for completeness. This analysis motivates future work to look at developmental differences in wrinkly-finger object manipulation, where the age variable might become categorical.

3) Why were characteristics of touch sensitivity not measured? There is psycho-physical and anatomical evidence for age-related differences.

This is an excellent point, and I agree entirely. The busy environment of the Science Museum meant that a bit of experimental care had to be sacrificed in favour of creating an engaging experience for museum visitors. I plan to conduct follow-up experiments in the lab that would afford this sort of measurement. I hope I have been open in the manuscript about the constraints of the public environment. I have added to the ‘limitations’ section of the Discussion to highlight that static and dynamic touch perception was not measured.

My stint at the Science Museum coincided with a primary and secondary school vacation. I was told that on my busiest day at the museum, 21,000 people passed through the doors. Not all of these people visited my area, but it did make for a very busy few weeks of data collection. If I were lucky enough to do something like this again, I would plan better for an experience that required less hands-on supervision from me, and more self-directed tasks for the visitors.

4) The description of the methodology is insufficient. Which statistical tests were used, which post-hoc tests, which correction procedures for unequal numbers of participants (e.g. Dry=231, Wet=72, Wrinkly=211)?

The primary statistical tests are described in the “Data analysis” section of the Methods, and I believe I have described all primary tests here. I am very grateful that the reviewer asked about the unequal group sizes, as it had not occurred to me to test. I have now used Bartlett’s test to test for homogeneity of variance in the Anovas. Only one test failed this assumption, so a Kruskal-Wallis test was used instead. Post-hoc tests used Matlab’s ‘multcompare’ function, which uses the Tukey-Cramer HSD correction after an Anova, or mean ranks after the Kruskal-Wallis test. I have added this information to the Methods section, under “Data analysis”.

The description of the figures is insufficient, the legends are incomplete and contain commented parts that belong in the discussion. What is the meaning of the coloured areas in Fig. 2? How was the average calculated? Is it the mean of all valid trials or is it the mean of the subjects' individual averages? In the latter case, how was intra-individual variability considered when calculating the averages (see age distribution)?

The description of the shaded area was not clear. It represents the ±1 standard error of the mean grip force at each timepoint in the static hold phase. To calculate this, each participant’s mean grip force was calculated, then the means of these means were calculated to form the traces that are illustrated. The SEM is shown for the static phase only, as this is the part that most directly answers the question I started with. The caption for Figure 2 has been updated to reflect this, and I have added an indication of the three phases of the trial (attack, static, decay).

Intra-individual variance was not analysed in this study, as each person only contributed eight trials. Individual trials were excluded if certain criteria were not met, and individual participants’ data were only included if they made five successful trials. So the analysis only proceeded on ‘valid’ trials. These criteria are stated in the “Data analysis” section of the Methods, and operate automatically within the Matlab analysis script.

In which interval were the data for Fig. 4 calculated? What does the inter-individual variability look like?

This information was missing from the manuscript. It represents the entire trace, minus the first 1000 ms. I have added this information to the caption of Figure 4. This figure is essentially the same as Figure 2, and the variance for the grip trace is shown in Figure 2 for the static phase. I attempted to redraw Figure 4 with the variance illustrated but it turned out to be an unhelpful mess. My intention was for this to look something like a phase plot, where the key information is the principal trajectory through phase space. I don’t think this figure quite achieves that level of helpfulness, however it does show the grip safety margin quite neatly, so I believe it is worth retaining.

Reviewer #2

Reviewer #2 made some generous and positive comments about the manuscript, for which I am very grateful. The reviewer suggests that a within-subjects version of the experiment would be interesting. I entirely agree, especially as grip force strategies tend to be fairly stable within a participant (so revealing differences between conditions). I plan to pursue this as soon as in-person experiments are possible in my region. Again, I thank the reviewer for the heartwarming comments.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Wrinkles - Response - 14Apr21.docx

Decision Letter 1

Markus Lappe

18 May 2021

PONE-D-21-04649R1

Water-immersion finger-wrinkling improves grip efficiency in handling wet objects

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Davis,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Reviewer 2 is happy with your revisions. Reviewer 1 feels that the manuscript does not reflect the full potential of the study with respect to the dependence of the findings on age. Please consider the reviewers comments and decide whether you want to expand the manuscript to include this analysis. As reviewer 1 indicated that s/he is not available for further review on this study that manuscript will not be sent to reviewer 1 again.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Markus Lappe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The author has answered the majority of the comments. Unfortunately, the relevant problem of the age dependence of the grip-force load-force ration has not been answered. The author writes in lines 189-191: " There was a small but significant correlation of this ratio with the age of the participant [r(514)=-0.149, p<0.001]. The ratio declined by 0.014 per year of age, although the variance explained by a linear regression was very low (R2=0.022)." and notes in his reply: "[… ] The reviewer makes the very good point that we might not expect a linear relationship to hold between these measures when looking at such a diverse cohort. However I did not have any reason to hypothesise any other form of relationship either, […]." Here I must clarify that there are clearly other results in the literature. It has been shown that motor skills of different complexities (e.g. Fig. 4.4 in Godde, Voelcker-Rehage, Olk, 2016 or Fig. 2 and 3 in Voelcker-Rehage, 2008) are highly non-linear in their execution as well as their learnability.

I have recalculated the linearity noted by the author using the data provided. The values given by the author (see above) can only be obtained if all data are combined, regardless of the experimental procedure (dry, wet, wrinkled). When the data were considered separately, significant but weak relationships were found for dry and wet and no significant relationship for wrinkled. It can be assumed that the correlation found is due to the high number of participants in the very young to young age range. In order to compensate for the existing numerical imbalance in the number of participants in the age groups, it is necessary to calculate the mean ratios per age group and correlate these values with age. The attached file GripLoadRatio_LogMeanValues.pdf shows my rough calculation of the data. There is a clear non-linear relationship between grip-force load-force ratio and age for all three groups (note the logarithmised y-axis). Only mean values with n>1 were used to calculate the regression curves. These results show that developmental differences can be found even in a simple grasping / loading task. Since this task does not require any complex cognitive-coordinative prerequisites, the observed differences can be assumed to be due to differences in sensory and motor domain. The question therefore arises whether the above-mentioned differences are not only due to cognitive developmental stages but also have a physiological basis. The comparison of the individual regression curves further shows that for the tasks dry and wet a comparable behaviour can be found across the lifespan, whereas under the condition wet higher grip forces are used especially in the younger age groups. This confirms the author's statement that "[…] Fingertip wrinkles would seem to afford an enhanced advantage in object handling, [...] (lines 255-256).

In the present version, the author only confirms the work he himself cites using data collected in a nice "science meets people" setting. The potential of the collected data is not used.

References

Godde, Voelcker-Rehage, Olk. Einführung Gerontopsychologie. UTB Uni-Taschenbücher Bd.4567, Verlag: Ernst Reinhardt / UTB, 2016.

Voelcker-Rehage C. (2008) Motor-skill learning in older adults—a review of studies on age-related differences Eur Rev Aging Phys Act (2008) 5:5–16

Reviewer #2: The Author addressed properly the suggested revisions . I think the results are informative and deserve publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: GripLoadRatio_LogMeanValues.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 21;16(7):e0253185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253185.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 May 2021

Reviewer #2 made a suggestion to disaggregate the different conditions (dry, wet, wrinkly) before regressing grip:load ratio against age. Reviewer #2 pointed out a possible nonlinear shape some of these regressions. I ran a similar analysis (using all data, which the reviewer did not do), and found qualitatively similar results. I have added a short amount of text to the Results section and to the Discussion that deals with this nonlinearity, and added one of the works cited in the previous review. As this additional analysis was exploratory I have not dwelt on it, but have acknowledged that there is some interesting work in this area.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Wrinkles - Response - 26May21.docx

Decision Letter 2

Markus Lappe

31 May 2021

Water-immersion finger-wrinkling improves grip efficiency in handling wet objects

PONE-D-21-04649R2

Dear Dr. Davis,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Markus Lappe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Markus Lappe

24 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-04649R2

Water-immersion finger-wrinkling improves grip efficiency in handling wet objects

Dear Dr. Davis:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Markus Lappe

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Wrinkles - Response - 14Apr21.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: GripLoadRatio_LogMeanValues.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Wrinkles - Response - 26May21.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All raw and processed data files from this experiment are available at Figshare.com: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14414780.v4. All analyses were conducted in Matlab, and the analysis routine is available in the same repository.

    All raw and processed data files from this experiment are available at Figshare.com: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14414780.v4. All analyses were conducted in Matlab, and the analysis routine is available in the same repository.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES