Precocious hand use preference in reach‐to‐eat behavior versus manual construction in 1‐ to 5‐year‐old children
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The variation in hand use as a function of task and developmental age poses a problem for understanding how and when "handedness," preferred use of one hand, develops. The present cross-section study is the first to contrast hand preference use for the natural and frequently used reach-to-eat movement with a constructional task that requires a very similar reach-to-grasp movement. Thirty children between the ages of 1 and 3 years completed an eating task, in which they grasped small food items (Cheerios™ or Froot Loops™) that they brought to the mouth for eating. Thirty children between the ages of 3 and 5 years completed the construction task, in which they grasped LEGO® pieces to construct 3D models. Hand use preference for grasping in the eating and construction tasks was calculated by comparing the percentage of grasps made by the right hand and by the left hand. There were two main findings: First, right hand preference for grasping in the eating task is present as early as 1 year of age, whereas right hand preference for grasping in the construction task does not develop until 4 years of age. Second, right hand preference for grasping is greater in the eating than in the construction task. The results are discussed in relation to the idea that a consideration for task constraints (e.g., unimanual vs. bimanual; eating vs. construction; natural vs. praxic) should be incorporated into the experimental design when measuring hand use in children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it