Smaller Fingers Mean More Sensitive Fingertips

A study in the Journal of Neuroscience finds that people with smaller fingers have more sensitive fingertips, probably due to a higher concentration of touch receptors in a given area. Cynthia Graber reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Smaller can sometimes be better, at least when it comes to fingers. It turns out that people with smaller fingers have more sensitive fingertips, according to a study in the Journal of Neuroscience.

Researchers at Canada’s McMaster University enlisted 100 volunteers, and measured each study subject’s index fingertip. The researchers pressed parallel grooves against the subjects’ fingertips. If they could feel those grooves, then the next set got narrower and narrower. Scientists compare it to an eye test, where you attempt to recognize progressively smaller letters until they’re no longer distinguishable.

Well, people with the smallest fingertips felt the narrowest grooves. The scientists postulated that this might be because they have a higher density of receptors crowded together and sending signals to the brain. It would be like a larger pixel count that makes up a clearer digital image.

To test the idea, the researchers measured the density of sweat pores. Because they knew that touch receptor cells cluster around sweat pores. And people with smaller and more sensitive fingers did have a higher concentration of sweat pores. Which means more receptors. And for their discovery, the researchers get a big hand.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is an exact transcript of the audio in the podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe