Investigating the Efficacy of the Hand Selection Complexity Task Across the Lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is inconsistent evidence demonstrating a relationship between task complexity and hand preference. However, analyzing the point at which task complexity overrides the decision to demonstrate a biomechanically efficient movement can enable complexity to be quantified. Young children (ages 3-7), adolescents (ages 8-12), young adults (ages 18-25), and older adults (ages 65+) performed a newly developed Hand Selection Complexity Task (HSCT) and completed the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire (WHQ). The HSCT included a reciprocal Fitts' tapping task performed in the contralateral space (i.e., same side as preferred hand), followed by ipsilateral space (i.e., opposite side of preferred hand). An alternating contralateral-ipsilateral pattern enabled the participant to progress through six levels of difficulty in three conditions (manipulating target amplitude, width, and combined factors). As participants were free to perform with whichever hand (i.e., preferred, non-preferred) they deemed most appropriate, the level of difficulty where a hand switch occurred was identified. HSCT completion time and error scores were also computed. Findings revealed age to be a significant predictor of dependent measures when considering significant effects and interactions. Combined with the covariate WHQ score as a significant predictor of HSCT time and errors (in some, but not all cases), it can be argued that age-related effects reflect the development of handedness, and changes in strength of handedness across the lifespan. Together, findings suggest that task complexity plays an important role in hand selection when performing a task of increasing difficulty. It appears that task complexity will take precedent over object proximity and biomechanical efficiency, at a certain point, in order to complete the movement with the preferred hand. This point ultimately changes throughout the lifespan.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".