Hand selection for role‐differentiated bimanual manipulation in a beading task: An assessment of typically developing children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Role‐differentiated bimanual manipulation (RDBM) is observed in many daily tasks. The preferred hand manipulates the object, whereas the nonpreferred hand stabilizes it. In this study, RDBM was assessed in 3‐ to 12‐year‐olds and young adults with a beading task. The number of trials where participants selected the preferred hand to grasp the thread and the number of hand switches (from thread to bead, or vice versa) in each trial (two beads/trial, six trials total) were recorded. No differences in the number of trials where the preferred hand was selected to grasp the thread emerged; however, 5‐ to 6‐ and 7‐ to 9‐year‐olds displayed fewer hand switches than all other participants. Findings are attributed to differences in beading strategies between 3‐ to 4‐, 5‐ to 9‐, and 10‐ to 12‐year‐olds that likely reflect changes in the development of handedness and control strategies. Future work with kinematic measures is recommended to discern developmental changes in bimanual control. Highlights Hand selection patterns of typically developing 3‐ to 12‐year‐olds and young adults were assessed in beading. No differences in hand selection emerged; however, differences in the number of hand switches were found in 5‐ to 6‐ and 7‐ to 9‐year‐olds. Findings are attributed to differences in beading strategies between 3‐ to 4‐, 5‐ to 9‐, and 10‐ to 12‐year‐olds that likely reflect changes in the development of handedness, and control strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".