The Quantification and Definition of Handedness: Implications for Handedness Research

Schachter, Steven C.

doi:10.1007/0-306-46884-0_6

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These percentages are in general agreement with other dichotomous estimates of hand preference from short questionnaires (reviewed in Schacter, 2000).…”

Section: The Samplesupporting

confidence: 88%

The bi-pedal ape: Plasticity and asymmetry in footedness

Carey

Smith

Martin

et al. 2009

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. ABSTRACTA strong preference for using the right foot for skilled activities parallels a similar side bias for hand use. However, many neuropsychologists, sports scientists and sports commentators argue that right foot bias in soccer is reduced or even eliminated by practice. This sort of plasticity is an important component of the principle genetic theories of handedness; yet very little is known about the relative asymmetries in the many unipedal skills required in soccer at amateur or professional levels. The first study examined self-report of hand and foot bias in a sample (n=400) of amateur soccer players, in addition to information about their practice with the non-preferred foot. A second study quantified foot use on the pitch in a large sample (n=426) of professional soccer players. The majority of the amateurs reported a right foot bias that is very similar to that seen in the general population (≈80%). However they only endorse strong biases for "closed" (self-paced) soccer actions like penalty and other free kicks, which give players unlimited time and space for preparation and execution. Although there was a very slight tendency for less right foot bias in the professionals (≈75%), as assessed by actual foot use rather than questionnaire, few players show anything like what could be described as two-footed play. This bias, unlike in the reports of amateurs, were for all of the behaviours investigated, not just so-called "skilled" behaviours. Finally, when outcomes of preferred and non-preferred foot behaviours were contrasted, the professionals were remarkably adept on those rare occasions when they use their non-preferred foot, suggesting that skill cannot explain asymmetry of choice. These results are discussed in terms of 1) limitations of self report on questionnaires for predicting actual on the field behaviour, 2) the surprising absence of plasticity in foot use, given the importance of learning, experience and culture in models of handedness and footedness, and 3) a left hemisphere lateralised intentional system as important for the selection of movements as for their execution.Key words: asymmetry; left hemisphere; footedness; motor control; soccer; football How plastic are side biases? 3 IntroductionLanguage lateralisation to the left hemisphere is modulated by handedness, but in ways that remain incompletely understood (Annett, 2002;2004;Gurd, Schulz, Cherkas and Ebers, 2006). Nevertheless, right hand bias in Homo sapiens and other primates has been linked to seve...

show abstract

“…These percentages are in general agreement with other dichotomous estimates of hand preference from short questionnaires (reviewed in Schacter, 2000).…”

Section: The Samplesupporting

confidence: 88%

The bi-pedal ape: Plasticity and asymmetry in footedness

Carey

Smith

Martin

et al. 2009

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using 970 as a cutoff for right and left handedness (Schachter, 2000), 17 (3.9%) were sinistrals, 190 (44.1%) were ambiguously handed or ambidextrous, and 224 were dextrals (52%).…”

Section: Fazio Coenen Denney Handednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

The original instructions for the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory are misunderstood by a majority of participants

Fazio¹,

Coenen²,

Denney³

2012

Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) is the most widely used handedness inventory. This study examined the rate at which the EHI instructions were followed using a large sample (n = 423) of males who were administered the instrument. Using liberal criteria for response coding, it was determined that only 47.3% were able to follow the instructions completely. This is in contrast to 88.2% successfully following instructions on a different, Likert-style instrument administered concurrently. Participants' level of education and handedness significantly predicted their adherence to instructions. Implications for the use of the EHI are discussed.

show abstract

“…(Preilowski, 1999;Schachter, 2000). The preferred hand in various so-called unimanual activities 1 indicates some doubts about the reliability or sufficient sensitivity of using only one single item.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The dimensionality of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: An analysis with models of the item response theory

Büsch

Hagemann

Bender

2010

Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handedness is frequently measured with sum scores or quotients taken from laterality questionnaires like the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI). In classical test theory such data cannot be used to confirm either the unidimensionality (i.e., quantitative differentiation with the poles left-handed and right-handed) or multidimensionality (i.e., typological differentiation between left-, right-, and mixed-handers) of this personal characteristic. This study uses item response theory models to test the construct validity of the EHI on an item level in order to gather empirical support for the differentiation of handedness as well as the appropriateness of the items and the response format. The EHI was given to 540 participants (303 male and 237 female) aged 17-37 years. Results of mixed-Rasch analyses revealed that the best model was a two-class solution; that is, left- and right-handers (types) with quantitative differences between persons. Hence, unlike earlier model tests, this rejects both the unidimensionality of the handedness construct and the need to consider so-called mixed-handers. It is proposed that mixed-Rasch analyses should be applied more frequently to test the construct validity of other as well as more extensive handedness questionnaires.

show abstract

The Quantification and Definition of Handedness: Implications for Handedness Research

Cited by 14 publications

References 78 publications

The bi-pedal ape: Plasticity and asymmetry in footedness

The bi-pedal ape: Plasticity and asymmetry in footedness

The original instructions for the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory are misunderstood by a majority of participants

The dimensionality of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: An analysis with models of the item response theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About