Response format, magnitude of laterality effects, and sex differences in laterality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the evidence for the claim that response format might affect the magnitude of laterality effects by means of a meta-analysis. The analysis included the 396 effect sizes drawn from 266 studies retrieved by Voyer (1996) and relevant to the main effect of laterality and sex differences in laterality for verbal and non-verbal tasks in the auditory, tactile, and visual sensory modality. The response format used in specific studies was the only moderator variable of interest in the present analysis, resulting in four broad response categories (oral, written, computer, and pointing). A meta-analysis analogue to ANOVA showed no significant influence of response format on either the main effect of laterality or sex differences in laterality when all sensory modalities were combined. However, when modalities were considered separately, response format affected the main effect of laterality in the visual modality, with a clear advantage for written responses. Further pointed analyses revealed some specific differences among response formats. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the measurement of laterality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".