Laterality differences in elite ice hockey: An investigation of shooting and catching orientations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the implications of motor asymmetries for skilled performers in dynamic, time-constrained, team-based activities such as ice hockey. Three studies were conducted to examine laterality differences in ice hockey. Study 1 investigated laterality distributions across three leagues of increasing calibre. Among skating players, skill level was related to changes in laterality patterns based on position, while a significant increase in the proportion of left-catching goaltenders was found across the levels of competition. Study 2 examined laterality differences through a 90-year retrospective analysis of player performance measures within an evolving system. Regression analysis indicated right shot preferences were associated with scoring more goals, while left shot preferences were related to assisting more goals. Among goaltenders, right-catching preferences were associated with an increased save percentage compared with left-catching goaltenders. In Study 3, player-goaltender shootout interactions revealed left shooters to be less successful against right-catching goaltenders. Results suggest ice hockey supports models of skilled perception, and provide new information in the area of laterality and strategic frequency-dependent effects in ice hockey.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".