Does your dominant hand become less dominant with time? The effects of aging and task complexity on hand selection
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 present article examines the lateralization of hand use throughout the lifespan with an emphasis on aging beyond adulthood. The experimental paradigm utilizes a novel observational method to determine the effects of task complexity, a currently misunderstood factor in hand selection. Current literature is contradictory in that some suggest an increase in motor dominance with age, while more recent work has suggested an approach to ambidexterity. Cross-sectional samples of 80 participants (20 between 2 and 4 years, 20 between 10 and 14 years, 20 between 18 and 25 years, 20 over 65 years) were asked to complete the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire, Tapley-Bryden Dot Marking Task, and the newly designed Task Complexity Gradient. Contrary to previous suggestions, the current findings suggest neither an increase or decrease in laterality, but that motor dominance remains consistent throughout adulthood. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of motor dominance throughout the lifespan and the factors that determine hand selection.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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