Handedness measures for the Human Connectome Project: Implications for data analysis.

IF 0.9 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Laterality Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2020-12-29 DOI:10.1080/1357650X.2020.1866001
Lana Ruck, P Thomas Schoenemann
{"title":"Handedness measures for the Human Connectome Project: Implications for data analysis.","authors":"Lana Ruck,&nbsp;P Thomas Schoenemann","doi":"10.1080/1357650X.2020.1866001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Open data initiatives such as the UK Biobank and Human Connectome Project provide researchers with access to neuroimaging, genetic, and other data for large samples of left-and right-handed participants, allowing for more robust investigations of handedness than ever before. Handedness inventories are universal tools for assessing participant handedness in these large-scale neuroimaging contexts. These self-report measures are typically used to screen and recruit subjects, but they are also widely used as variables in statistical analyses of fMRI and other data. Recent investigations into the validity of handedness inventories, however, suggest that self-report data from these inventories might not reflect hand preference/performance as faithfully as previously thought. Using data from the Human Connectome Project, we assessed correspondence between three handedness measures - the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI), the Rolyan 9-hole pegboard, and grip strength - in 1179 healthy subjects. We show poor association between the different handedness measures, with roughly 10% of the sample having at least one behavioural measure which indicates hand-performance bias <i>opposite</i> to the EHI score, and over 65% of left-handers having one or more mismatched handedness scores. We discuss implications for future work, urging researchers to critically consider direction, degree, <i>and</i> consistency of handedness in their data.</p>","PeriodicalId":47387,"journal":{"name":"Laterality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1357650X.2020.1866001","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laterality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2020.1866001","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/12/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Open data initiatives such as the UK Biobank and Human Connectome Project provide researchers with access to neuroimaging, genetic, and other data for large samples of left-and right-handed participants, allowing for more robust investigations of handedness than ever before. Handedness inventories are universal tools for assessing participant handedness in these large-scale neuroimaging contexts. These self-report measures are typically used to screen and recruit subjects, but they are also widely used as variables in statistical analyses of fMRI and other data. Recent investigations into the validity of handedness inventories, however, suggest that self-report data from these inventories might not reflect hand preference/performance as faithfully as previously thought. Using data from the Human Connectome Project, we assessed correspondence between three handedness measures - the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI), the Rolyan 9-hole pegboard, and grip strength - in 1179 healthy subjects. We show poor association between the different handedness measures, with roughly 10% of the sample having at least one behavioural measure which indicates hand-performance bias opposite to the EHI score, and over 65% of left-handers having one or more mismatched handedness scores. We discuss implications for future work, urging researchers to critically consider direction, degree, and consistency of handedness in their data.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人类连接体计划的偏手性测量:数据分析的含义。
开放数据倡议,如英国生物银行和人类连接组项目,为研究人员提供了获取大量左右手参与者样本的神经成像、遗传和其他数据的途径,使他们能够比以往任何时候都更有力地研究利手性。在这些大规模的神经影像学背景下,利手性量表是评估参与者利手性的通用工具。这些自我报告测量通常用于筛选和招募受试者,但它们也被广泛用作功能磁共振成像和其他数据统计分析中的变量。然而,最近对利手性量表有效性的调查表明,这些量表的自我报告数据可能并不像以前认为的那样忠实地反映出手性偏好/表现。利用人类连接组项目的数据,我们评估了1179名健康受试者的三种惯用手性测量方法——爱丁堡惯用手性量表(EHI)、罗利安9孔钉板和握力之间的对应关系。我们发现不同的惯用手性测量结果之间的关联性很差,大约10%的样本至少有一项行为测量表明与EHI分数相反的手表现偏差,超过65%的左撇子有一个或多个不匹配的惯用手性得分。我们讨论了对未来工作的影响,敦促研究人员批判性地考虑他们数据中的偏手性的方向、程度和一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Laterality
Laterality Multiple-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition publishes high quality research on all aspects of lateralisation in humans and non-human species. Laterality"s principal interest is in the psychological, behavioural and neurological correlates of lateralisation. The editors will also consider accessible papers from any discipline which can illuminate the general problems of the evolution of biological and neural asymmetry, papers on the cultural, linguistic, artistic and social consequences of lateral asymmetry, and papers on its historical origins and development. The interests of workers in laterality are typically broad.
期刊最新文献
Auditory perceptual ability affects dichotic listening performance in older adults. The effect of ocular dominance on choroidal structures. Artistic turns: laterality in paintings of kisses and embraces A task-dependent analysis of closed vs. open and fine vs. gross motor skills in handedness. Fear is more right lateralized than happiness and anger: Evidence for the motivational hypothesis of emotional face perception?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1