Exploring handedness and the likelihood of "switching hands" within a young adult population after practice with the non-dominant hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that those who strongly prefer one hand over the other will unconsciously select that limb to perform more unimanual tasks (Scharoun & Bryden, 2014). The purpose of the current research was to investigate the potential influence of practice on limb selection in a preferential reaching task. We hypothesized that moderate of a simple task using only the non-preferred upper limb would influence the frequency of selecting the non-preferred limb. Participants aged 18-25 years (n=15) were asked to first complete the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire to determine the preferred hand. Next, participants were asked to complete two trials of the Annett Pegboard Task with each hand. The task required participants to move a set of stationary pegs from one end of the board to the other as quickly as possible. Participants were then asked to complete a preferential reaching task using Fitlights. Here, five Fitlights were placed in a semicircular configuration (+-90°, +-45°, 0°) in front of the participant. Initially, participants completed 90 trials of the preferential reaching task where they were asked to tap quickly on the illuminated Fitlight with one hand. Next, participants were asked to complete 600 training trials, with only their non-preferred hand. After these training conditions, participants were asked to complete the same preferential reaching task, where differences in limb selection were compared. The Annett Pegboard Task was completed again at the conclusion of the experiment. Preliminary results indicate an increase in the frequency of unimanual tasks completed with the non-preferred hand following the conditions. The findings will be discussed in light of practice theories of handedness.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".