The Tapley and Bryden test of performance differences between the hands: The original data, newer data, and the relation to pegboard and other tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tapley and Bryden (T&B)'s 1985 circle-marking task is a group-administered task assessing performance differences between the hands. The bimodal distribution clearly separates self-described right- and left-handers. Using Phil's original datafiles we analyse the test in more detail, providing raw scores for each hands which are useful forensically, and we provide reliability estimates. Van Horn's unpublished 1992 PhD thesis studied T&B tasks and Annett pegboards varying in difficulty. A striking finding, that Phil Bryden called "the Van Horn problem," was that hand differences (R - L) were unrelated to task difficulty. That result was the starting point for Pamela Bryden's 1998 thesis, firstly replicating Van Horn, but then showing that task difficulty did relate to hand differences for Grooved pegboards. Pamela Bryden's model for those effects is presented here. Comparing across tasks, the T&B and pegboard tasks showed almost complete consistency for direction of handedness. Likewise, within each task, degree of handedness intercorrelated strongly across variants. In strong contrast, degree of handedness for T&B tasks showed minimal correlation with degree of handedness for pegboards. At the highest level, therefore, direction of handedness is consistent within individuals (conventional right and left handedness), but there are separable processes determining dominant-non-dominant hands differences for each particular task.
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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".