Directionality in drawing in children and adults with the preferred and non-preferred hands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of age, handedness and sex on directionality of drawing in both hands was studied in 138 right- and left-handed children aged 5-10 and a younger adult sample aged 18-25. The experiment focused on biomechanical versus environmental aspects of directionality. Previous research has suggested that right-handed drawers are more likely to be influenced by biomechanical constraints whereas left-handed drawers are more influenced by environmental constraints (Braswell & Rosengren, 2002). Directionality was examined using several drawing tasks including: one object drawing task, two stroke direction tasks and three circle-drawing tasks. Each task was completed with both the preferred and non-preferred hands. The direction of drawing was recorded. Overall, results indicated that right-handers produce more left-directed profiles than left-handers. With respect to differences between age groups, it was found that adult right-handers were more likely to draw more left-directed profiles, draw more lines from left-to-right and draw more circles in a counter-clockwise direction. Right-handed children performed directly opposite to adults. Therefore, children aged 5-8 performed directly opposite from adults until the age of 9 where adult-like patterns of directionality occur. An effect of handedness was also found, where left-handers were more variable in terms of the age at which adherence to preferred stroke direction occurs. Finally, sex also played a role, as overall females were more likely to draw left-directed pictures than males. The results will be discussed in terms of the factors that affect directionality (i.e., environmental versus biomechanical) in drawing and how this changes with respect to age.Acknowledgments: NSERC
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".