TWHP (TYPE-WHAT-HOW-POSE): A Novel Nomenclature for Hand Anthropometry

  • Dhananjay Singh BishtEmail author
  • Mohammed Rajik Khan
Conference paper
Part of the Learning and Analytics in Intelligent Systems book series (LAIS, volume 12)


Hand anthropometry data collection of a sample population is a conventional and important first step during design and evaluation of any hand operated product. The purpose of this work is first to discuss some of the deficiencies in the use of hand anthropometry nomenclature in published scientific literature. Based on the limitations observed, a mnemonics-based novel nomenclature system called TWHP (TYPE-WHAT-HOW-POSE) is proposed for easy and efficient referencing and management of the names/titles/labels of different hand anthropometric dimensions. A typical hand anthropometry measurement exercise could involve measurements of features classified as distances, angles, and ratios. Within the scope of this work distance specific dimensions and the associated ratios have been considered for the TWHP nomenclature development.


Hand anthropometry Nomenclature Standardization Mnemonics 


  1. 1.
    Bisht, D.S., Khan, M.R.: Ergonomic assessment methods for the evaluation of hand-held industrial products: a review. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, pp. 559–564 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Obi, O.F., Ugwuishiwu, B.O., Adeboye, B.S.: A survey of anthropometry of rural agricultural workers in Enugu State, south-eastern Nigeria. Ergonomics 58(6), 1032–1044 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bisht, D.S., Khan, M.R.: Anatomically shaped tool handles designed for power grip. In: International Conference on Research into Design, pp. 135–148. Springer, Singapore, January 2017Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bisht, D.S., Khan, M.R.: A novel anatomical woodworking chisel handle. Appl. Ergon. 76, 38–47 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dizmen, C.: Hand anthropometry analysis and construction of regression models for a Hong Kong sample. In: Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, vol. 2, pp. 1446–1448 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Obi, O.F.: Hand anthropometry survey of rural farm workers in south-eastern Nigeria. Ergonomics 4, 603–611 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nag, A., Nag, P.K., Desai, H.: Hand anthropometry of Indian women. Indian J. Med. Res. 117, 260–269 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wibowo, R.K.K., Soni, P.: Anthropometry and agricultural hand tool design for Javanese and Madurese farmers in east Java, Indonesia. APCBEE Procedia 8, 119–124 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu, A., Yick, K.L., Ng, S.P., Yip, J.: 2D and 3D anatomical analyses of hand dimensions for custom-made gloves. Appl. Ergon. 44(3), 381–392 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vergara, M., Agost, M.J., Gracia-Ibáñez, V.: Dorsal and palmar aspect dimensions of hand anthropometry for designing hand tools and protections. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 28(1), 17–28 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barut, C., Demirel, P., Kıran, S.: Evaluation of hand anthropometric measurements and grip strength in basketball, volleyball and handball players. Anatomy 2(1), 55–59 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jee, S.C., Yun, M.H.: An anthropometric survey of Korean hand and hand shape types. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 53, 10–18 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcia-Caceres, R.G., Felknor, S., Cordoba, J.E., Caballero, J.P., Barrero, L.H.: Hand anthropometry of the Colombian floriculture workers of the Bogota plateau. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 42(2), 183–198 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Design DepartmentNational Institute of Technology RourkelaRourkelaIndia

Personalised recommendations