Deviation and Laterality of Hand Preference in Monkeys

Beck, Charles H.M.; Barton, Robert L.

doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(72)80001-7

Cited by 111 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, there is no significant hand preference at the population level even when a less stringent a 5 0.01 is used. Our results are in line with other NWM species (see Papademetriou et al [2005] for review) and are also consistent with other suborders which show no population bias toward lateralization of manual function (Prosimians [Cantalupo & Ward, 2000;Dodson et al, 1992;Sanford et al, 1984;Ward & Cantalupo, 1997;Ward et al, 1990]; OWM [Aruguete et al, 1992;Beck & Barton, 1972;Harigel, 1991;Rigamonti et al, 1998;Teichroeb, 1999;Westergaard et al, 2001]; and Apes [Byrne & Byrne, 1993;Colell et al, 1995;Hopkins et al, 1994;Rogers & Kaplan, 1996]). Our results are consistent with the notion that although some species show population level hand bias for specific activities, it is a uniquely human feature to show population level hand preference across a range of different behaviors.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Observations of hand preference in wild groups of white‐faced sakis (Pithecia pithecia) in Suriname

Smith

Thompson

2011

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand preference is well observed in humans and some primates. Unlike many other primates, however, humans show a consistent hand preference across a variety of tasks, and a distinct right-handed skew at the population level. Although there are a moderate number of published studies, primate hand preference literature is unbalanced by the large number of studies on only a few species. No previous studies have addressed hand preference in white-faced sakis (WFS; Pithecia pithecia). We followed three habituated groups of wild WFS in Suriname and recorded individual hand preference for six different manual behaviors. There was no consistent hand preference across a range of uni-manual behaviors for any individual. Likewise, there were significantly more ambidextrous individuals in the population than expected (χ(2) (df = 2) = 11.2, P = 0.004) and thus, no population level hand preference. Our findings contribute baseline data to the debate of primate hand lateralization, and support the notion that lateralization of hand function does not characterize all species.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Observations of hand preference in wild groups of white‐faced sakis (Pithecia pithecia) in Suriname

Smith

Thompson

2011

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, chimpanzees required to hold a tube and extract peanut butter with fingers of the opposite hand exhibited a population right hand bias (Hopkins, 1995). Westergaard and Suomi (1996) have reported a similar population right hand bias in rhesus monkeys but not capuchin monkeys (also see Beck & Barton, 1972) for the same tube task. Finally, Byrne and Byrne (1991) found a slight but significant right hand population bias in bimanual feeding in wild gorillas (also see Fagot & Vauclair, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manual Specialisation and Tool Use in Captive Chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ): The Effect of Unimanual and Bimanual Strategies on Hand Preference

Hopkins¹,

Rabinowitz²

1997

Laterality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand preference for tool use was assessed in a sample of captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Whether the subjects solved the tool task using either a unimanual or coordinated bimanual strategy was manipulated in the chimpanzees. No population-level hand preference was found for tool use when unimanual strategies were used by the chimpanzees. However, a population-level right-hand bias was found when coordinated bimanual actions were required of the chimpanzees. A significant correlation was found in hand use for the two hand preference testing conditions. Neither sex nor rearing was found to significantly affect the direction or strength in hand preference. These results may explain discrepancies in hand preference reported in captive and wild chimpanzees with regard to tool use and other manual activities.

show abstract

“…Both the split-half and test-retest reliability of the handedness tests increase progressively on successive replications (Beck & Barton, 1972;Warren, 1958Warren, , 1977. Increments in the consistency of handedness are also suggested by a rise in the number of monkeys with statistically significant preferences, in the degree of preference averaged over all monkeys, in the number of significant correlations between tests, and by a decrease in the number of contradictory preferences, that is, when a monkey uses its right on one task and its left on another.…”

Section: Temporal and Situational Constancymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results from Macaca mulatta and M. speciosa on multiple handedness tests reveal high interest agreement among tasks that acquire common manipulations, but low correlations among tasks that require test-unique hand movements (Beck & Barton, 1972;Deuel, 1975;Warren, 1977). Marmosets also display discrepant hand preferences on different tests of manipulation (Rothe, 1973).…”

Section: Temporal and Situational Constancymentioning

confidence: 99%