An international study of human handedness: The data

Perelle, Ira B.; Ehrman, Lee

doi:10.1007/bf01067189

Cited by 275 publications

(209 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, cultural factors (pressure to conform to a right-handed standard) can affect results (Harris, 1990;Perelle and Ehrman, 1994;Raymond and Pontier, 2004); forced switching of hand-use is common, especially in writing and food-utensil-use (Porac et al, 1990). One large international study found an average of just fewer than 10% left-hand preference and about 90% right-hand preference (less than 1% ambidextrous) for writing, with results varying by country from about 3% to 13% left-handed (Perelle and Ehrman, 1994). An even broader international study assessing more generalized or gross upper limb motor skillsdthrowing and hammeringdobtained generally higher incidences of left-handedness, ranging from 4% to 28% (ambidextrous individuals were grouped with left-handers in this study) (Raymond and Pontier, 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The precise magnitude of behavioral laterality in humans is difficult to define due to inconsistency among studies in assessment criteria for handedness or footedness testing (i.e., fine motor skills versus coarse strength skills, or behavioral observation versus interview) and in the way in which these criteria are interpreted to indicate dedicated or mixed laterality (Collins, 1961;Porac and Coren, 1981;Plato et al, 1984;Perelle and Ehrman, 1994;Raymond and Pontier, 2004). In addition, cultural factors (pressure to conform to a right-handed standard) can affect results (Harris, 1990;Perelle and Ehrman, 1994;Raymond and Pontier, 2004); forced switching of hand-use is common, especially in writing and food-utensil-use (Porac et al, 1990). One large international study found an average of just fewer than 10% left-hand preference and about 90% right-hand preference (less than 1% ambidextrous) for writing, with results varying by country from about 3% to 13% left-handed (Perelle and Ehrman, 1994).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: variability and commonality among modern humans

Auerbach

Ruff

2006

Journal of Human Evolution

408

422

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans demonstrate species-wide bilateral asymmetry in long bone dimensions. Previous studies have documented greater right-biases in upper limb bone dimensionsdespecially in length and diaphyseal breadthdas well as more asymmetry in the upper limb when compared with the lower limb. Some studies have reported left-bias in lower limb bone dimensions, which, combined with the contralateral asymmetry in upper limbs, has been termed ''crossed symmetry.'' The examination of sexual dimorphism and population variation in asymmetry has been limited.This study re-examines these topics in a large, geographically and temporally diverse sample of 780 Holocene adult humans. Fourteen bilateral measures were taken, including maximum lengths, articular and peri-articular breadths, and diaphyseal breadths of the femur, tibia, humerus, and radius. Dimensions were converted into percentage directional (%DA) and absolute (%AA) asymmetries. Results reveal that average diaphyseal breadths in both the upper and lower limbs have the greatest absolute and directional asymmetry among all populations, with lower asymmetry evident in maximum lengths or articular dimensions. Upper limb bones demonstrate a systematic right-bias in all dimensions, while lower limb elements have biases closer to zero %DA, but with slight left-bias in diaphyseal breadths and femoral length. Crossed symmetry exists within individuals between similar dimensions of the upper and lower limbs. Females have more asymmetric and right-biased upper limb maximum lengths, while males have greater humeral diaphyseal and head breadth %DAs. The lower limb demonstrates little sexual dimorphism in asymmetry. Industrial groups exhibit relatively less asymmetry than pre-industrial humans and less dimorphism in asymmetry. A mixture of influences from both genetic and behavioral factors is implicated as the source of these patterns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: variability and commonality among modern humans

Auerbach

Ruff

2006

Journal of Human Evolution

408

422

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Approximately 85% to 90% of humans report themselves as being right handed (Annett, 1985(Annett, ,2002Perelle & Ehrman, 1994;Porac & Coren, 1981;Raymond & Pontier, 2004). Right handedness presumably reflects a left-hemisphere specialization for motor skills and is thought to be an indirect marker of lateralization for language functions.…”

Section: Abstract Handedness; Great Apes; Laterality; Behavior Geneticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative and familial analysis of handedness in great apes.

Hopkins¹

2006

Psychological Bulletin

165

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, population-level handedness has been considered a hallmark of human evolution. Whether nonhuman primates exhibit population-level handedness remains a topic of considerable debate. This paper summarizes published data on handedness in great apes. Comparative analysis indicated that chimpanzees and bonobos show population-level right handedness, whereas gorillas and orangutans do not. All ape species showed evidence of population-level handedness when considering specific tasks. Familial analyses in chimpanzees indicated that offspring and maternal (but not paternal) handedness was significantly positively correlated, but this finding was contingent upon the classification criteria used to evaluate hand preference. Overall, the proportion of right handedness is lower in great apes compared with humans, and various methodological and theoretical explanations for this discrepancy are discussed. Keywords handedness; great apes; laterality; behavior geneticsApproximately 85% to 90% of humans report themselves as being right handed (Annett, 1985(Annett, ,2002Perelle & Ehrman, 1994;Porac & Coren, 1981;Raymond & Pontier, 2004). Right handedness presumably reflects a left-hemisphere specialization for motor skills and is thought to be an indirect marker of lateralization for language functions. For example, 96% of righthanded individuals are left-hemisphere dominant for language in contrast to about 70% in lefthanded individuals (Knecht et al., 2000;Rasmussen & Milner, 1977). The association between hand preference and language dominance has led to a number of evolutionary and biological theories proposing that hemispheric specialization and language (or perhaps other higher cognitive functions) coevolved and are unique characteristics of the human brain (see Annett, 1985;Corballis, 1992Corballis, ,2002Crow, 1998;Yeo, Thoma, & Gangestad, 2002, for reviews). The historical lack of evidence for functional asymmetries in nonhuman species, with the exception of birds, was taken as evidence in support of the uniqueness of hemispheric specialization to humans (Bradshaw & Rogers, 1993). However, based on research carried out in the past 10 to 15 years, good evidence exists of population-level hemispheric specialization in nonhuman species for various cognitive, perceptual, and to a lesser extent, motor functions (Rogers & Andrew, 2002;Vallortigara & Rogers, 2005). For example, toads prefer to the use their right paw when removing materials from their bodies and orienting themselves when floating upside-down (Bisazza, Cantalupo, Robins, Rogers, & Vallortigara, 1996). Chicks and pigeons show a host of behavioral asymmetries including left-hemisphere biases in local discrimination of food items (Andrew, 1991;Güntürkün, 1997). Chicks also show and right-hemisphere biases in predator detection (Vallortigara, 1992), as has also been reported in certain species of fish (Bisazza, Cantalupo, Capocchiano, & Vallortigara, 2000). These data clearly challenge the long held belief that hemispheric specialization is a un...

show abstract

“…Asian elephants, Elephas maximus, were examined both in captivity (Haakonsson and Semple, 2009) and in the wild (in Sri Lanka: Martin and Niemitz, 2003;in India: Keerthipriya et al, 2015), while a female African elephant, Loxodonta cyclotis, was observed in the zoo (Racine, 1980). In contrast to humans (Perelle & Ehrman 1994), great apes (Meguerditchian et al, 2013), bipedal marsupials (Giljov et al, 2015), parrots (Harris, 1989), anuran amphibians (Malashichev, 2006) and many other vertebrates (Ströckens et al,2013), elephants showed no population-level side biases in their manipulative behaviours neither with the use of the trunk nor with the use of the forelimbs (Haakonsson and Semple, 2009;Martin and Niemitz, 2003;Keerthipriya et al, 2015). However, taking into account that manifestation of motor lateralization depends on the nature of the task (Rogers, 2009), the full understanding of the lateralized trunk use in elephants cannot be gained without investigating it in different behavioural contexts.…”

Section: Animal Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context-dependent lateralization of trunk movements in wild Asian elephants

Giljov

Silva

Karenina

2017

BioComm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asymmetrical trunk use in elephants represents a distinctive example of motor lateralization. Previous studies have shown that trunk movements in the elephant behaviour associated with feeding is lateralized at the individual, but not the population level. The manifestation of lateralized behaviour depends on the nature of the behaviour and is usually more pronounced in social context. Therefore, we hypothesized that population-level lateralization of trunk use in elephants is manifested in social behaviour. One-sided biases in trunk movements were assessed in wild individually-identified Asian elephants during feeding (tearing off a tuft of grass) and social interactions (trunk-to-mouth contacts and trunk-to-genitals contacts between male initiator and female recipient). In feeding, lateralization at the individual and population levels was estimated based on 50 lateral trunk uses per individual. In social interactions, only the population-level bias was assessed using a single trunk contact from each individual. For trunk movements during feeding, elephants showed robust individual preferences, but no population-level lateralization. The distribution of right-and left-trunkers in the present study did not differ significantly from that obtained in previous studies of both the same elephant population and geographically distinct population. No population-level bias in trunk movements during trunk-to-mouth contacts was revealed. In trunk-to-genitals contacts, in contrast, a population-level lateralization was found. Right-sided trunk movements prevailed in males touching females. While individual preferences for feeding, combined with the absence of one-sided population bias, is obviously a species-typical characteristic of Asian elephants, social behaviour, such as male-female socio-sexual contacts, can elicit population-level lateralization of trunk use in this species. The right-sided bias in trunk-to-genitals contacts may reflect lateralization of olfactory perception. If this is the case, the revealed lateralization indicates a right-hemispheric advantage in the processing of social information which is consistent with the general tendency in mammals.

show abstract

An international study of human handedness: The data

Cited by 275 publications

References 30 publications

Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: variability and commonality among modern humans

Limb bone bilateral asymmetry: variability and commonality among modern humans

Comparative and familial analysis of handedness in great apes.

Context-dependent lateralization of trunk movements in wild Asian elephants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About