How Might the Relation of the Development of Hand Preferences to the Development of Cognitive Functions be Examined During Infancy: A Sketch?

Abstract

Investigations of the relation of the development of hand preferences to the development of other sensorimotor and cognitive abilities are plagued by confusing and contradictory results. In part, the confusion derives from the failure to create accurate, appropriate, and reliable descriptions of the development of hand preferences and the cognitive or sensorimotor ability of interest. This paper sketches an ideal longitudinal study (from birth through 5 years) with a large sample size that should provide reliable evidence for the understanding of the relation of hand preferences to cognitive development. Since hand preference differences would affect the way infants engage in manual actions with objects and these differences would likely affect how they come to comprehend object relations, differences in the development of cognition across handedness groups would be a good test of certain forms of embodiment theory.

Handedness Development: A Model for Investigating the Development of Hemispheric Specialization and Interhemispheric Coordination

“…For handedness, explanations must account for, at least, the apparent continuous distribution of skill differences between the hands, the maintenance of a distinct minority of "left-handers" in the population, the reasons for a distinctly smaller proportion of complete left-hand use among left-handers as compared to the large proportion of complete right-hand use among right-handers. I propose that the adoption of a developmental psychobiological perspective may solve many of the problems confronting current explanations of HS/HC [46]. That perspective starts with some theoretical notions about the mechanisms underlying hemispheric specialization.…”

Handedness Development: A Model for Investigating the Development of Hemispheric Specialization and Interhemispheric Coordination

“…Please note that I am not advocating for a rejection of the conventional wisdom; I am only noting that too many studies are not designed to challenge it and hence, we cannot know whether the consensus adequately represents the reality of HS/HC. However, I do advocate that there is much to be obtained by adopting a developmental psychobiological perspective to the issues of HS/HC (Michel, 2018). That perspective starts with some theoretical notion about the mechanisms underlying hemispheric specialization Some Speculations about the Mechanism Underlying Hemispheric Specialization.…”

“…The typical functional labels for those processes that differ between hemispheres (e.g., language, spatial ability, positive emotions) hide a myriad of many different simpler neural processes and circuits (Michel, 2018). Only by identifying the precise differences in the processing circuitry between the hemispheres can we discover how particular functions come to be distinct aspects of hemispheric specialization.…”

“…Also, it seems likely that differential experience in moving the forelimbs (i.e., feedback via spontaneous actions, practice, or learning) can contribute to differences in the mechanisms of control and these differences can have wideranging consequences on brain structures other than the motor cortex and its direct loops Doyon, et al 2018). My perspective on handedness development incorporates the consequences of such feedback for the organization of the mechanisms of handedness (Michel, 1987(Michel, , 2002(Michel, , 2018.…”

“…Elsewhere, I have sketched out a program for how to examine the relation of the development of handedness to the development of other cognitive abilities (Michel, 2018).…”