Hemispatial Effects for Left- and Right-handers on a Pointing Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of the current study was to determine if left-handers show an advantage for each hand in its own region of space, as do right-handers. Additionally, the study aimed to determine whether a preferred-hand advantage for movement exists in a highly-practiced task. To examine these questions, 81 right- and 60 left-handers were administered the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire (WHQ) and completed a computer-based pointing action, where kinematic data was recorded. Here, participants were required to move to a target, located to left, midline and right of the starting position, maximizing both speed and accuracy. A 3-target location (left, midline and right space) by two hand (left, right) repeated measures ANOVA was performed for each kinematic variable, for each handedness group separately. Results indicated that left-handers showed the same spatial compatibility or object proximity effect noted by other researchers in right-handers. However, no preferred-hand advantage was found, replicating the work of Bryden and Roy (1999) who showed that the existence of the preferred-hand advantage is dependent upon the degree of spatial precision required at the movement goal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".