How far will you go before switching hands? Handedness on the long pegboard across the lifespan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Handedness is a significant behavioral asymmetry; however, there is debate surrounding the age at which hand preference develops, and little research has been conducted on handedness in older adults. The current study examined performance on the long pegboard, to identify similarities and differences in young children (ages 4-7 years), older children (ages 8-12 years), young adults (ages 18-25 years), and older adults (ages 70+ years). Average time per hole, number of hand switches, and errors were assessed with left- and right-hand starts. A left-right ratio was computed from the long pegboard, along with laterality quotients from the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire (WHQ). Results revealed faster performance when participants started the task on the right side of the long pegboard with the right-hand, coupled with a later switch to the left-hand. There was a greater number of errors with left-hand starts, and an earlier switch to the right-hand. Age was a significant predictor of the average time per hole and number of errors. Long pegboard ratio and WHQ laterality quotient were only correlated for adults. Together, findings offer insight regarding age-related effects in handedness and support the long pegboard as a useful measure 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".