Could hand-eye laterality profiles affect sport performance? A systematic review

Abstract

Background Laterality effects on sports performance have been a field of interest for the sports sciences, especially in asymmetrical sports, which require the preferential use of one side of the body. Some sports in particular involve the visual system and ocular laterality, due to the need to clearly focus on a dynamic object (ball, opponent, projectile, etc.). The relationship between manual and ocular laterality results in two perceptual-motor profiles, one where the dominant hand and eye are ipsilateral (uncrossed hand-eye laterality profile, UC-HELP), and the other where they are contralateral (crossed hand-eye laterality profile, C-HELP). Methodology A systematic review of the literature was carried out to determine the prevalence of hand-eye laterality profiles in the different sports modalities and their relationship with psychological factors and sports performance. Searches of PsycInfo, Medline, Scopus and grey literature identified 14 studies (2,759 participants) regarding hand-eye laterality in sports that met the eligibility criteria. Results Previous studies have estimated that between 10–30% of the general population exhibit a C-HELP, and 70–90% have an UC-HELP. The results of the reviewed studies indicate that in some sports the percentage of C-HELP is higher in regular and high-level athletes than in the normal population: golf (52.55%), soccer (53%), tennis (42%) and team sports (50.7%). In target sports (archery and shooting) athletes with an UC-HELP seem to have an advantage given the significant concentration of this profile in the highest performing populations (82.3%). In basketball, cricket and golf, the literature reviewed also reported biomechanical differences in the execution of some techniques between the two profiles. We did not find any study in our review that related hand-eye laterality with cognitive, tactical, or psychological aspects of athletes. Conclusions These results should be taken with great caution due to the potential bias linked to the methodologies used in the investigations, the heterogeneity in the assessment of hand-eye laterality, the few studies available on the subject and the indirect nature of many of the observed relationships between performance and laterality. For further investigation, we propose a standardized terminology and protocol of hand-eye laterality assessment in sports. The advancement in knowledge about hand-eye laterality profiles, along with the study of the relationship with psychological or tactical-sports patterns, can contribute to more effective development plans for athletes and can be a complement to talent detection.

Linking the preference in a bilateral asymmetric task with handedness, footedness, and eyedness: The case of ice-hockey

“…For eyedness, about 30% of people in our sample (about the same proportions for female and male participants) had a left-eye preference, which is consistent with what is reported in the literature [ 10 ]. The weak link between eyedness and gripping an ice-hockey stick is not surprising considering that in bilateral asymmetric sports like cricket and golf, the advantage of a cross-lateral stance is not modulated by eyedness [ 14 , 15 ] In the review by Moreno et al [ 28 ], cross hand-eye lateral preference would be helpful in tennis and some team sports, and hockey is mentioned in these “team sports”. However, it is not specified if it is ice-hockey or field hockey, and what belongs specifically to hockey; we have not found this information in the original paper [ 29 ].…”

“…The way handedness, eyedness, and footedness was tested is also a limitation. For example, there are different ways of assessing eye preference or dominance [ 28 ], including using photo and a pointing task [ 15 ], instead of using preferences for a one-eyed activity. As for the bilateral tasks, it is not excluded that the order of questions may have had an impact, with the response to one question having repercussion on the way of representing the placement of hands on the subsequent question.…”

Exploring Footedness, Throwing Arm, and Handedness as Predictors of Eyedness Using Cluster Analysis and Machine Learning: Implications for the Origins of Behavioural Asymmetries

“…For example, an ipsilateral arrangement for hand and eye dominance appears to convey an advantage in different throwing and aiming behaviours [6,[19][20][21], so that novice archers with ipsilateral hand-eye patterns have an advantage compared to archers who are cross-lateralized for hand and eye [22]. Conversely, a cross-lateralized hand-eye profile may enhance perceptual-motor performance in other ways, providing an advantage in sports such as tennis, golf, football, and other team sports (see [23] for a review). It has been suggested that being cross-lateralized may be particularly advantageous in duels when an individual is left-handed and right-eyedominant [24].…”

Optical coherence tomography profile of macular structure and ocular dominance in young adults

“…Dominance refers to the preference most humans show for one side of their body over the other to do activities like writing, eating or sports especially in asymmetrical sports, which require the preferential use of one side of the body. 1,2 Whereas functional dominance happens in the paired organs of the body, such as hands, legs, eyes, ears and cerebral hemispheres; the exact mechanisms resulting in dominance as well as the strength and quality of lateralisation remain unclear. 2,3,4 Eye dominance is the superiority or preference of one eye over the other for visual, sensory and oculomotor tasks in individuals with similar vision and other extraocular structures.…”

“…1,2 Whereas functional dominance happens in the paired organs of the body, such as hands, legs, eyes, ears and cerebral hemispheres; the exact mechanisms resulting in dominance as well as the strength and quality of lateralisation remain unclear. 2,3,4 Eye dominance is the superiority or preference of one eye over the other for visual, sensory and oculomotor tasks in individuals with similar vision and other extraocular structures. Conversely, on those with pathological features or ocular defects such as the presence of anisometropia, paralysis of extraocular muscles, unilateral cataract or other aspects that would tend to determine which eye with manifest suppression and therefore be the non-dominant eye, the preference could be easily understood.…”