The effects of task demands on manual asymmetries in left-handed and right-handed individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our work on manual asymmetries has shown that the preferred-hand advantage increases with task complexity in right-handers, but little is known about these effects in left-handers. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether hand differences in performance are affected by task demands in left-handers as they are in right-handers. We tested both left-(n=25) and right-(n=84) handed younger adults on the grooved pegboard task, a measure of fine motor control. As in our previous work, we varied task demands by comparing performance on two phases of this task, the place phase in which participants pick up the pegs from a receptacle and place them into a series of 25 holes and the replace phase which involves removing the pegs from the holes and returning them to the receptacle. Participants performed two trials with each hand on each phase. A 2(hand used) X 2(task) ANOVA on pegboard performance for each handedness group revealed a significant task effect for each group, with the place phase taking significantly longer. For the right-handers there was also a preferred-hand advantage with the right hand taking less time and this preferred-hand advantage was significantly greater for the place phase. Interestingly, however, no hand differences in performance were found for the left-handers nor did task demands affect manual asymmetries in performance. The implications of these findings for understanding the effects of hand preference on manual asymmetries will be discussed. Acknowledgments: Research support NSERC (PB and ER) and HSFO (ER)
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".