Does your dominant hand become less dominant with time? The effects of aging and task complexity on hand selection
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".