Handedness effects on imagery of dominant‐ versus non‐dominant‐hand movements: An electroencephalographic investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental representations of our bodies are thought to influence how we interact with our surroundings. We can examine these mental representations through motor imagery, the imagination of movement using scalp EEG recordings. The visual modality of motor imagery emphasises 'seeing' the imagined movement and is associated with increased activity in the alpha rhythm (8-14 Hz) measured over the occipital regions. The kinaesthetic modality emphasises 'feeling' the movement and is associated with decreased activity in the mu rhythm (8-14 Hz) measured over the sensorimotor cortices. These two modalities can be engaged in isolation or together. We recorded EEG activity while 37 participants (17 left-hand dominant) completed an objective hand motor imagery task. Left-handers exhibited significant activity differences between occipital and motor regions only during imagery of right-hand (non-dominant-hand) movements. This difference was primarily driven by less oscillatory activity in the mu rhythm, which may reflect a shift in imagery strategy wherein participants placed more effort into generating the kinaesthetic sensations of non-dominant-hand imagery. Spatial features of 8-14 Hz activity generated from principal component analysis (PCA) provide further support for a strategy shift. Right-handers also exhibited significant differences between alpha and mu activity during imagery of non-dominant movements. However, this difference was not primarily driven by either rhythm, and no differences were observed in the group's PCA results. Together, these findings indicate that individuals imagine movement differently when it involves their dominant versus non-dominant hand, and left-handers may be more flexible in their motor imagery 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".