Assessing the reliability of an online behavioural laterality battery: A pre-registered study

Parker, Adam J; Woodhead, Zoe; Thompson, Paul A.; Bishop, Dorothy V. M.

doi:10.1080/1357650x.2020.1859526

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an ideal scenario, multiple handedness measures collected in large samples are likely to lead to novel breakthroughs. With the increased level of digitalisation and online testing [62], these types of datasets are becoming a more likely and extremely exciting possibility. For now, one of the key advances in the field is a new appreciation for the complexity that underlies handedness, a trait apparently very simple at both the behavioural and molecular level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Advances in Handedness Genetics

Paracchini

2021

Symmetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Around the world, about 10% people prefer using their left-hand. What leads to this fixed proportion across populations and what determines left versus right preference at an individual level is far from being established. Genetic studies are a tool to answer these questions. Analysis in twins and family show that about 25% of handedness variance is due to genetics. In spite of very large cohorts, only a small fraction of this genetic component can be pinpoint to specific genes. Some of the genetic associations identified so far provide evidence for shared biology contributing to both handedness and cerebral asymmetries. In addition, they demonstrate that handedness is a highly polygenic trait. Typically, handedness is measured as the preferred hand for writing. This is a very convenient measure, especially to reach large sample sizes, but quantitative measures might capture different handedness dimensions and be better suited for genetic analyses. This paper reviews the latest findings from molecular genetic studies as well as the implications of using different ways of assessing handedness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Advances in Handedness Genetics

Paracchini

2021

Symmetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Parker, Egan, et al’s (2021) study used right-handed participants, whereas we used left-handed participants: this difference may have caused our failure to replicate Parker’s results. It is known that left-handers are more variable in their strength and direction of lateralization than right-handers (e.g., Bruckert et al, 2021; Woodhead et al, 2021); however, we controlled for this by testing the left-handers’ lateralization using a dichotic listening task, and selecting a subgroup of participants with typical (left) lateralization as well as a subgroup with atypical (right or bilateral) lateralization based on participants’ ear advantage.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…There are a number of possible explanations. We have ruled out the possibility that Parker, Egan, et al’s (2021) result was a false positive—the literature on the facilitatory N effect in the LVF is robust, and Parker, Egan, et al’s study itself was a replication and was backed up by a meta-analysis of similar findings in the literature. We believe it is more likely that our failure to replicate Parker, Egan, et al’s findings was attributable to methodological differences between the studies in terms of the participant group, the task design, or the stimuli, which are discussed in detail below.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthographic neighborhood effects during lateralized lexical decision are abolished with bilateral presentation.

Mills¹,

Woodhead²,

Parker³

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Words presented to the right visual field (RVF) are processed more rapidly than those in the left visual field (LVF), presumably because of more direct links to the language dominant left cerebral hemisphere. This effect is moderated by a word's orthographic neighborhood size (N), with LVF facilitation and RVF inhibition for words with a large N. Across two experiments, we sought to further examine lateralized N effects. Experiment 1 examined how hemispheric dominance for language influenced lateralized N effects, in 140 left-handers using a visual half-field task with bilateral presentation. Neither participants with a right ear advantage on a dichotic listening task nor participants with no right ear advantage showed the expected N effect, making the results ambiguous: it could be that left-handers fail to show N effects, or the effect could be abolished by some procedural aspect. Experiment 2 looked to test these options by testing 56 right-handers who responded to the same stimulus set under the original bilateral presentation condition and under unilateral presentation. N effects were found under unilateral but not bilateral presentation. We had adopted bilateral presentation because it had been recommended as better than unilateral presentation for controlling fixation and visual stimulation; our results indicate that this is not a minor methodological modification: it can dramatically affect lateralized N effects. Public Significance StatementWords presented in the right visual field are initially projected to the left cerebral hemisphere. Conversely, words presented in the left visual field are initially projected to the right hemisphere. Word-level properties, such as orthographic neighborhood size, differentially affect word identification across each cerebral hemisphere. In particular, having many neighbors facilities word identification in the right hemisphere whereas it inhibits word identification in the left hemisphere. We explored these asymmetries further across two studies where words were displayed in isolation or accompanied by a distractor. The data is conclusive in showing that presentation mode has nontrivial consequences for lateralized orthographic neighborhood effects: neighborhood effects are only detectable under unilateral presentation where words are displayed in isolation

show abstract

“…A recent study of the online measurement of lateral perceptual biases (for dichotic listening, facial emotion processing, and other tasks) adopted r ≥ .65 as a criterion level of test-retest reliability, for a task to be potentially useful for studying individual differences (Parker et al, 2021). In the pseudoneglect studies reviewed above, test-retest reliabilities above this level have been reported for line bisection (Learmonth et al, 2015;Luh, 1995;Varnava et al, 2013), and also for the landmark task (McCourt, 2001;Mitchell et al, 2020;Varnava et al, 2013), but reliability estimates are often lower than this, and the inter-task correlations are usually modest or poor.…”

Section: Test-retest Reliability and Inter-task Correlationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On line bisection: validity and reliability of online measures of pseudoneglect

Mitchell¹,

Kandt²,

McIntosh³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed whether pseudoneglect can be measured online, using a line bisection task and a forced-choice perceptual landmark task. Around 90% of 253 dextrad-language, neurotypical participants passed data quality checks, and were included in a repeat session nine days later. Spatial bias for the line bisection task was characterised by the traditional measure of Directional Bisection Error (DBE), and by Endpoint Weightings Bias (EWB), a measure derived from an ‘endpoint weightings’ analysis, made possible by the independent manipulation of left and right endpoint positions. For the landmark task, the Point of Subjective Equality (PSE) was estimated. Line bisection showed the expected pattern of leftward bias (pseudoneglect), with larger effect sizes for EWB (d = -0.34 in both sessions) than for DBE (-0.22 in Session 1 and -0.14 in Session 2), but landmark PSE showed no evidence of pseudoneglect. Test-retest reliability was higher for DBE (r = .77) and PSE (r = .69) than for EWB (r = .63). Although EWB is less reliable than DBE, it is more sensitive to pseudoneglect, and the end-point weightings method has several further advantages over traditional line bisection, including the option of an additional measure of non-lateralised attentional engagement. This study demonstrates the feasibility and validity of online line bisection to measure pseudoneglect, and provides grounds to suggest that the line bisection task should routinely include the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints, so that the benefits of an endpoint weightings analysis can be accessed.

show abstract

Assessing the reliability of an online behavioural laterality battery: A pre-registered study

Cited by 26 publications

References 68 publications

Recent Advances in Handedness Genetics

Recent Advances in Handedness Genetics

Orthographic neighborhood effects during lateralized lexical decision are abolished with bilateral presentation.

On line bisection: validity and reliability of online measures of pseudoneglect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About