MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112556576 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00017

Is strength of handedness reliable over repeated testing? An examination of typical development and autism spectrum disorder

2015· article· en· W2112556576 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara M. Scharoun Benson, Pamela J. Bryden

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyHand preferenceAutism spectrum disorderPreferenceDevelopmental psychologyAutismTypically developingAudiologyLateralityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite a lack of agreement concerning the age at which adult-like patterns of handedness emerge, it is generally understood that hand preference presents early in life and development is variable. Young children (ages 3-5 years) are described as having weak hand preference; however, older children (ages 7-10 years) display stronger patterns. Here, strength of hand preference refers to reliable use of the preferred hand. In comparison to their typically developing (TD) peers, individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are described as having a weak hand preference. This study aimed to extend the literature to assess three measures of handedness (Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire - WHQ, Annett pegboard - AP, and WatHand Cabinet Test - WHCT) in two repeated sessions. The first research question aimed to delineate if the strength of hand use changes across testing sessions as a function of age in typical development. Right-handed children reported a reliable preference for the right hand on the WHQ, similar to adults. A marginally significant difference was revealed between 3- to 4- and 5- to 6-year-olds on the AP. This was attributed to weak lateralization in 3- to 4-year-olds, where the establishment of hand preference by age 6 leads to superior performance with the preferred hand in 5- to 6-year-olds. Finally, for the WHCT, 3- to 4-year-olds had the highest bimanual score, indicating use of the same hand to lift the cabinet door and retrieve an object. It is likely that the task was not motorically complex enough to drive preferred hand selection for older participants. The second research question sought to determine if there is difference between (TD) children and children with ASD. No differences were revealed; however, children with ASD did display variable AP performance, providing partial support for previous literature. Findings will be discussed in light of relevant literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207