The effect of hand position on perceived finger orientation in left- and right-handers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the absence of visual feedback, the perceived orientation of the fingers is systematically biased. In right-handers these biases are asymmetrical between the left and right hands in the horizontal plane and may reflect common functional postures for the two hands. Here we compared finger orientation perception in right- and left-handed participants for both hands, across various hand positions in the horizontal plane. Participants rotated a white line on a screen optically superimposed over their hand to indicate the perceived position of the finger that was rotated to one of seven orientations with the hand either aligned with the body midline, aligned with the shoulder, or displaced by twice the shoulder-to-midline distance from the midline. We replicated the asymmetric pattern of biases previously reported in right-handed participants (left hand biased towards an orientation ~30° inward, right hand ~10° inward). However, no such asymmetry was found for left-handers, suggesting left-handers may use different strategies when mapping proprioception to body or space coordinates and/or have less specialization of function between the hands. Both groups' responses rotated further outward as distance of the hand from the body midline increased, consistent with other research showing spatial orientation estimates diverge outward in the periphery. Finally, for right-handers, precision of responses was best when the hand was aligned with the shoulder compared to the other two conditions. These results highlight the unique role of hand dominance and hand position in perception of finger orientation, and provide insight into the proprioceptive position sense of the upper limbs.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".