Does handedness matter? Writing and tracing kinematic analysis in healthy adults

Ivančević, Nikola; Novičić, Marija; Miler-Jerkovic, Vera; Janković, Milica M.; Stevanović, Dejan; Nikolić, Blažo; Popović, Branka; Jančić, Jasna

doi:10.2298/psi181229014i

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, our research lacks a right-handed control group, which would have allowed a direct comparison of converted left-handers' right-hand writing performance with that of innate right-handers. However, previous studies found few 59,60 to no differences 7 between right-and left-handers' handwriting kinematics despite slight differences in biomechanics.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Handwriting kinematics during learning to write with the dominant left hand in converted left-handers

Stetter

Sattler²,

Marquardt³

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Converting left-handers to their non-dominant right hand was previously widespread, particularly for handwriting. The present study aimed to explore the extent to which adult, converted left-handers can learn writing with their dominant left hand during a 2-year training program. Eleven converted left-handers participated in the training. Handwriting kinematics were assessed at regular intervals (seven sessions) and compared to those of 11 innate left-handed controls matched for age, gender, and overall handedness score for basic (Finger, Wrist, Circle) and complex (Sentence, Copy) handwriting tasks. Regarding basic tasks in the training group, we found rapid increases in left and right-hand frequency and no significant differences between both hands at any time point, indicating successful hand transfer. After 24 months, training participants significantly surpassed controls for writing frequency in basic tasks with their left hand. For complex tasks, we identified significant increases in the training groups’ left-hand writing frequency and duration between the first and last session. While training participants’ left-hand writing remained significantly slower than their right-hand writing, statistics confirmed final differences between hands only for the duration of the Sentence task. Importantly, left-hand writing in the training group was characterized by lower frequency, lower automaticity, and prolonged duration after 24 months compared to innate left-handers. With training participants’ left-hand writing skills significantly increasing for complex tasks and no final statistically significant differences between hands for frequency and automaticity, the program was considered effective. Nevertheless, within 2 years, training participants did not reach innate left-handers handwriting proficiency for complex tasks. Underlying reasons may be various, such as a non-optimal training program, a sensitive period for learning to write, irreversible neural changes during conversion in childhood, age-related decline of motor learning capacity, or retrograde interference between right- and left-hand writing.

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Handwriting kinematics during learning to write with the dominant left hand in converted left-handers

Stetter

Sattler²,

Marquardt³

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies demonstrated that attention facilitated behavioral performance in individual sensory modalities. Furthermore, attentional increases were noted in the amplitude of early and middle latency components of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by somatosensory stimulation (Desmedt and Robertson, 1977;Garcia-Larrea et al, 1995;Eimer et al, 2002;van Velzen et al, 2002;Valeriani et al, 2003;Kida et al, 2004b,c;Forster and Eimer, 2005;Kida et al, 2006;Gherri and Eimer, 2008;Press et al, 2008;Adler et al, 2009;Keil et al, 2017;Novicic and Savic, 2023;Savic et al, 2023). Auditory spatial selective attention exerts two types of effects on N1 amplitude: the superimposition of another negativity (processing negativity, PN, or its negative difference between attended and unattended channels, Nd) and the enhancement of N1 itself (Hillyard et al, 1973;Naatanen et al, 1978;Naatanen, 2000), and visual spatial attention also exerts both of these effects on amplitudes in the N1-P2 latency range (Johannes et al, 1995;Hillyard and Anllo-Vento, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ERP evidence of attentional somatosensory processing and stimulus-response coupling under different hand and arm postures

Kida,

Kaneda,

Nishihira

2023

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated (1) the effects of divided and focused attention on event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by somatosensory stimulation under different response modes, (2) the effects of hand position (closely-placed vs. separated hands) and arm posture (crossed vs. uncrossed forearms) on the attentional modulation of somatosensory ERPs, and (3) changes in the coupling of stimulus- and response-related processes by somatosensory attention using a single-trial analysis of P300 latency and reaction times. Electrocutaneous stimulation was presented randomly to the thumb or middle finger of the left or right hand at random interstimulus intervals (700–900 ms). Subjects attended unilaterally or bilaterally to stimuli in order to detect target stimuli by a motor response or counting. The effects of unilaterally-focused attention were also tested under different hand and arm positions. The amplitude of N140 in the divided attention condition was intermediate between unilaterally attended and unattended stimuli in the unilaterally-focused attention condition in both the mental counting and motor response tasks. Attended infrequent (target) stimuli elicited greater P300 in the unilaterally attention condition than in the divided attention condition. P300 latency was longer in the divided attention condition than in the unilaterally-focused attention condition in the motor response task, but remained unchanged in the counting task. Closely locating the hands had no impact, whereas crossing the forearms decreased the attentional enhancement in N140 amplitude. In contrast, these two manipulations uniformly decreased P300 amplitude and increased P300 latency. The correlation between single-trial P300 latency and RT was decreased by crossed forearms, but not by divided attention or closely-placed hands. Therefore, the present results indicate that focused and divided attention differently affected middle latency and late processing, and that hand position and arm posture also differently affected attentional processes and stimulus–response coupling.

show abstract

“…Specific kinematic parameters of writing can be derived from strokes and these are: on surface pressure, stroke speed, stroke duration, velocity, acceleration, jerk, number of velocity/acceleration direction alteration, hand in-air/on-surface time, horizontal/vertical/tangential velocity (acceleration/jerk) and others [6][7][8][9][10]. Various psychiatric and neurological disorders often have their own unique combination of kinematic parameters in particular writing task in which they deviate from healthy controls [6][7][8][9][10][11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Writing kinematics and graphic rules in children with ADHD

Ivančević¹,

Miler-Jerkovic

Stevanović³

et al. 2020

Srp Arh Celok Lek

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction/Objective. The aim of this study was to coIntroduction/Objective. The aim of this study was to compare kinematic features and graphic rules of writing between children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (with and without medical treatment) and typically developed children (TDC). Methods. In total, 55 children (26 with ADHD/ten subjects were on methylphenidate treatment and 29 TDC) completed a writing task on a digitizing board (in three repetitions; using non-inking stylus) which included a semicircle tracing, triangle, and letter copying. Kinematic features of movements in all tasks and graphic rules during a semicircle tracing were analyzed. Graphic rules were observed as expected movements (selecting the starting point and direction of tracing). Results. The values of kinematic parameter jerk were significantly larger in TDC group compared to all ADHD subjects (regardless of treatment) and increased constantly with semicircle task progression and repetition in both groups. Children with ADHD without methylphenidate treatment used overall slower movements compared to TDC. The tracing of children with ADHD taking methylphenidate was more automated (with less change in movement velocity and acceleration) compared to TDC. In ADHD group only, those with treatment traced faster and more automated compared to those without treatment. The majority of subjects used expected movements in semicircle tracing and this percentage increased with the task repetition (without difference between ADHD and TDC). Conclusion. Both children with ADHD and TDC used similar approach in the tracing task and were compliant with graphic rules. Methylphenidate treatment may positively influence writing kinematics in children with ADHD. Task repetition also influences writing. [Project of the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Grant no. 175016]

show abstract

Does handedness matter? Writing and tracing kinematic analysis in healthy adults

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Handwriting kinematics during learning to write with the dominant left hand in converted left-handers

Handwriting kinematics during learning to write with the dominant left hand in converted left-handers

ERP evidence of attentional somatosensory processing and stimulus-response coupling under different hand and arm postures

Writing kinematics and graphic rules in children with ADHD

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About