Sex and hand differences in haptic processing: implications for mental rotation ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been proposed that the sensorimotor system provides a foundation for the development of cognitive abilities and their hemispheric specialization. In this study, we investigated the potential relationship between haptic processing and mental rotation ability, both of which are typically lateralized to the right hemisphere. Previous research has also indicated that males tend to outperform females in both functions. The current study investigates how the sensorimotor-haptic system relates to mental rotation ability, specifically to examine the influence of hand performance (as a proxy for hemispheric specialization) and biological sex on this relationship. Seventy-five participants (n = 41 females) completed a haptic task, and the well-known mental rotation test (MRT) developed by Shepard and Metzler (Science 171:701-3, 1971). Results confirmed a positive correlation between performance on the haptic and MRT tasks. Further, males outperformed females in both tasks. However, when sex and hand performance were considered, males were better in the haptic task, but only when using their left-hand. Moreover, left-hand haptic performance was the sole predictor of MRT performance. These findings suggest that sex differences in haptic processing may contribute to the observed sex differences in mental rotation ability, supporting the view that sensorimotor processes shape cognitive function and its hemispheric lateralization.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".