An Examination of Practice and Laterality Effects on the Purdue Pegboard and Moving Beans with Tweezers

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relation of practice or learning and laterality on the Purdue Pegboard and the Moving Beans with Tweezers test. The subjects were 30 right-handed, healthy young male adults (age: M = 21.1, SD = 1.9 yr.). The subjects performed both tests five times with each hand. A two-way analysis of variance (hand x trial) for scores on the Purdue Pegboard showed that Trial 1 had a significantly lower mean than Trials 4 and 5 with the dominant hand, and scores on Trials 1 and 3 were lower than that on Trial 5 for the nondominant hand. For the Moving Beans with Tweezers test, Trial 1 had a significantly lower score than Trial 5 with the nondominant hand. The dominant hand produced significantly higher values on all trials of both tests. Intraclass correlation coefficients of Trials 2 and 3 were high, and means were significantly higher for the dominant hand. A correlation between other tests was not high (r = .37-.46) for both hands. All correlations among five trials on both tests were significant and high (Purdue Pegboard-Dominant: average r =.72, [r] = .60-.80, Purdue Pegboard-Nondominant: average r = .59, [r] = .43-.76), (Moving Beans-Dominant: average r = .74, [r] = .57-.81, Moving Beans-Nondominant: average r =.71, [r] = .55-.87). Correlations among five trials for the ratio of dominant:nondominant hand on both tests were significant and moderate (Moving Beans: average r = .28, [r] = .08-.57, Purdue Pegboard: average r = .41, [r] = .19.56). Performance with the dominant hand is superior to that of the nondominant hand on both tests. Practice effects are found for both tests across five trials. The Moving Beans with Tweezers test also showed laterality of practice effects. The two tests may measure different abilities.

Handedness Matters for Motor Control But Not for Prediction

“…Our FFT analyses further confirmed the superiority of the right hand with lower tracking error between 0.3 and 1.2 Hz, a frequency range that matches with rather slow (voluntary) visuomotor feedback loops. Overall these results are consistent with previous studies that explored the effect of hand dominance during hand tracking (Simon et al, 1952; Carey et al, 2003; Aoki et al, 2016), as well as other studies investigating reaching movements (Carson et al, 1993; Elliott et al, 1993; Roy et al, 1994; Carey and Liddle, 2013; Schaffer and Sainburg, 2017), and conventional tests of manual dexterity (Bryden and Roy, 2005; Noguchi et al, 2006).…”

“…Motor control is generally more efficient for the dominant hand than the non-dominant hand. This idea is supported by numerous reports comparing the time to complete tests of manual dexterity (Bryden and Roy, 2005; Noguchi et al, 2006; Wang et al, 2011), as well as reports comparing the accuracy and variability of reaching movements (Carson et al, 1993; Elliott et al, 1993; Roy et al, 1994; Carey and Liddle, 2013; Schaffer and Sainburg, 2017). As for the effect of handedness on predictions, however, this issue has been less explored.…”

When Non-Dominant Is Better than Dominant: Kinesiotape Modulates Asymmetries in Timed Performance during a Synchronization-Continuation Task

“…The extent of this variability varies depending on the type of task performed, but also on the limb performing the task. In fact, behavioral research has revealed numerous advantages of the dominant (or preferred) limb in the generation of motor output including an increased strength (Armstrong and Oldham, 1999 ; Farthing et al, 2005 ), rate (Todor and Kyprie, 1980 ; Noguchi et al, 2006 ) and consistency of movement (Peters, 1976 ; Todor et al, 1982 ; Schmidt et al, 2000 ). For instance, Armstrong and Oldham ( 1999 ), when comparing maximum grip forces in healthy subjects, showed that they produced with the dominant arm forces approximately larger by 10% than those produced with the non-dominant arm.…”

“…For instance, Armstrong and Oldham ( 1999 ), when comparing maximum grip forces in healthy subjects, showed that they produced with the dominant arm forces approximately larger by 10% than those produced with the non-dominant arm. Also, in reaching tasks, when the rate by which pegs can be moved on a pegboard was evaluated, the dominant hand showed to be superior to the non-dominant one (Noguchi et al, 2006 ). Moreover, numerous finger tapping experiments have demonstrated that the dominant limb (DL) has advantages, in terms of speed and timing consistency, over the non-dominant limb (NDL) when sequential actions are performed at maximal speed (Peters, 1976 ; Todor et al, 1982 ; Schmidt et al, 2000 ).…”

Effects of Repeated Training on Controlled Force Exertion and Retention in Dominant and Nondominant Hands

“…Noguchi et al [19] reported that lateral dominance is found in the practice effect in the Moving Beans with Tweezers test from results showing that the practice effect is found only in the nondominant hand. They reasoned that the practice effects was not found in the dominant hand because it is frequently used in movements similar to those in the Moving Beans with Tweezers test in daily life, and therefore did not develop.…”