Population genetic analysis of human hand preference: Evidence for generation differences, familial resemblance, and maternal effects

Abstract

Hand preference data were collected from 2818 subjects in 616 families using an adapted version of the Edinburgh Inventory. Population genetic analysis of these data and those from previous population studies, altogether encompassing 38,505 subjects in 8572 families, reveals evidence for generation differences, familial resemblance, and maternal effects.

Maternal effects on mouse brain weight

“…Maternal effects in mammals have been reported several times previously 9,11,12 , including a maternal effect on human IQ". In the present laboratory, hybrid maternal effects have been observed on the rates of mouse development observed both prenatally 23 and postnatally 24 .…”

Comparative and familial analysis of handedness in great apes.

“…The principal data in support of the genetic models for human hand preference are that it runs in families (Curt, De Agostini, Maccario, & Dellatolas, 1995;Laland et al, 1995;McGee & Cozad, 1980;McManus & Bryden, 1992), and that offspring typically exhibit patterns of hand preference more similar to their biological parents compared with offspring who have been either adopted (Carter-Saltzman, 1980) or raised by step-parents (Hicks & Kinsbourne, 1976). Studies in twins also indicate that concordance rates in hand preference are higher in monozygotic compared with dizygotic individuals, further supporting a genetic basis for handedness (Sicotte, Woods, & Mazziota, 1999).…”

“…Some genetic models propose one or two loci coding for handedness (or related lateralized brain functions [i.e., language]) (Annett, 1985;Corballis, 1997;Klar, 1999;McManus, 1985), whereas other genetic models rely on invoking general levels of heterozygosity where high levels of homozygosity are associated with higher levels of developmental instability and deviations in modal right handedness (Laland, Kumm, Van Horn, & Feldman, 1995;Yeo & Gangestad, 1993). Some non-genetic models also exist for the development of hand preference in humans, such as social learning and pressure, postnatal infant head position, or in utero fetal position (Collins, 1985;Michel, 1981;Previc, 1991;Provins, 1997).The principal data in support of the genetic models for human hand preference are that it runs in families (Curt, De Agostini, Maccario, & Dellatolas, 1995;Laland et al, 1995;McGee & Cozad, 1980;McManus & Bryden, 1992), and that offspring typically exhibit patterns of hand preference more similar to their biological parents compared with offspring who have been either adopted (Carter-Saltzman, 1980) or raised by step-parents (Hicks & Kinsbourne, 1976). Studies in twins also indicate that concordance rates in hand preference are higher in monozygotic compared with dizygotic individuals, further supporting a genetic basis for handedness (Sicotte, Woods, & Mazziota, 1999).…”

Heritability of hand preference in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Evidence from a partial interspecies cross-fostering study.

“…Both genetic models (Annett, 1985;Corballis, 1997;Laland, Kumm, Van Horn, & Feldman, 1995;McManus, 1985;Yeo & Gangestad, 1993) and environmental models (Collins, 1985;Provins, 1997) have been proposed to explain the origin of human hand preference. The principal data in support of a genetic basis for hand preference are that it runs in families (Curt, De Agostini, Maccario, & Dellatolas, 1995;Laland et al, 1995;McGee & Cozad, 1980;McManus & Bryden, 1992) and that offspring typically exhibit patterns of hand preference more similar to their biological parents compared with offspring who have been adopted or raised by stepparents (Carter-Saltzman, 1980;Hicks & Kinsbourne, 1976).In contrast with humans, the historical view has been that nonhuman animals, particularly nonhuman primates, do not exhibit population-level handedness (see Ettlinger, 1988;Warren, 1980). In recent years, behavioral research in a variety of nonhuman primate species has revealed that population-level handedness can be found in some species for certain measures (Bradshaw & Rogers, 1993;Fagot & Vauclair, 1991;W.…”