Comfort and preference in hand reaching tasks: Insight gained from studying individuals with a history of hand switching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preferential reaching tasks have demonstrated a higher likelihood that right-handed individuals use their preferred hand in contralateral space, and consecutively rate higher comfort levels during manipulation compared to left-handers. The right-sided world hypothesis suggests that the continuous pressure on left-handers to use their non-preferred hand results in a higher comfort level during its use, sometimes resulting in a hand preference switch. The purpose of this study was to further investigate the performance and comfort level of individuals who switched their hand preference, for any reason, or length of time compared to those who have never switched. Five right-handed, six left-handed, and eight individuals who underwent a hand-switch (N = 19, females = 13) were tested using a preferential reaching task. The task required the individuals to pick up and manipulate a tool from one of five positions using their preferred hand. Next, the task was repeated but participants had to use a specific hand, whereby upon completion participants subjectively rated their comfort level. Handedness and hand switching experiences were determined using the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire and the Hand Preference Change Inventory. Results indicated a main effect of the hand-switched individuals displaying less preferred hand selection than both groups (F (2,15) = 6.547, p =.009). Contrary to the right-sided world hypothesis, left-handed individuals had the highest comfort with the preferred hand and lowest comfort with the non-preferred hand (F (2,15) = 25.478, p <.001). Overall, switch-handed individuals experienced a decreased preference for their dominant hand and did not differ in comfort ratings compared to the other two groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".