Effect of Lateralization on Motor and Mental Speed in Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The correspondence between the motor and mood regulation systems may shed light on the physiopathology of mood disorders. Handedness is a reliable proxy measure for cerebral lateralization for right handed subjects. In this study we have investigated the effects of lateralization on cognitive performance as well as motor and mental speed in bipolar disorder.Methods: Sixty-eight euthymic bipolar patients (mean age: 33.66±6.38, 33 female), and 65 healthy subjects (mean age: 33.65+7.11, 27 females) were enrolled. Participants with medical or psychiatric comorbidities were excluded. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA), finger-tapping, peg-board test, Adult Memory and Information Processing battery (AMIPB), Edinburgh Handedness Inventory and reaction time tests were the measures utilized in our study.Results: The groups were similar in terms of age, gender and education. The bipolar patients were more lateralized than the controls (p=0.027), whereas eye and foot lateralization did not differ between the groups. The patients performed poorer than the controls on the MOCA (p=0.049), peg-board (right and left, p<0.001), finger-tapping (right p<0.001; left p=0.002), AMIPB (motor and A subtest, p<0.001 for both) and the visual and auditory (p<0.001 for both) reaction time tests. The degree of lateralization was correlated with the speed of processing in the bipolar group, but not in the control group.Conclusion: Right handed patients with bipolar disorder are more lateralized than healthy subjects and lateralization provides an advantage for processing speed in bipolar patients. This finding may indicate a relationship between lateralizing physiopathology and slowed interhemispheric communication and thus, an increase in lateralization might be a compensatory mechanism to use less interhemispheric communication in bipolar disorder.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".