Hand preference for unimanual and bimanual tasks: Evidence from questionnaires and preferential reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current research compared hand selection in a preferential reaching paradigm with unimanual (i.e., pick-up cup) and bimanual (pick-up cup and pour from pitcher) tasks. In addition, relationships between self-report, questionnaire-based hand preference (unimanual and bimanual) and patterns of hand selection were assessed. Data offer support for a division of labour between the hands in at the midline; however, bimanual selection otherwise reflects consideration of object proximity (i.e., location) and comfort (i.e., biomechanical constraints). When grasping cups in right space, the right-hand was used to stabilize the cup and left-hand to mobilize the pitcher, whereas the opposite pattern was observed in left-space. Unimanual hand selection was also driven by object location. Subsequent analyses revealed a relationship between unimanual measures, but not bimanual measures of hand preference. Overall, findings support the notion that questionnaire data are associated with hand preference for grasping to a certain extent; however, use of a comprehensive battery of assessments is recommended when assessing and/or predicting 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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".