Phenotyping in clinical laterality research: a comparison of commonly used methods to determine mixed-handedness and ambidexterity.

Abstract

An increased prevalence of mixed-handedness has been reported in several neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders. Unfortunately, there is high between-study variability in the definition of mixed-handedness, leading to a major methodological problem in clinical laterality research and endangering replicability and comparability of research findings. Adding to this challenge is the fact that sometimes researchers use the concepts of mixed-handedness and ambidexterity interchangeably. Therefore, having a consensus on how to determine mixed-handedness and how to distinguish it from ambidexterity is crucial for clinical laterality research. To this end, hand preference and hand performance data from more than 600 participants from the Dortmund Vital Study (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05155397), a population-based study in Germany, was analyzed to ascertain an optimal classification to determine mixed-handedness and ambidexterity. Using a combination of latent class analyses, effect size determination, and comparisons with the existing literature, we establish that an LQ cut-off criterion of +/-60 for mixed-handedness is optimal for future clinical laterality studies. Moreover, we show that mixed-handedness and ambidexterity are not identical and that the terms should not be used interchangeably. We further highlight the need for a consensus on how to mathematically determine ambidexterity as results of existing categorization schemes largely differ.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05155397; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05155397.