Hand Preference in Stuttering: Meta-Analyses.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-05 DOI:10.1007/s11065-023-09617-z
Marietta Papadatou-Pastou, Anastasia-Konstantina Papadopoulou, Christos Samsouris, Annakarina Mundorf, Maria-Myrto Valtou, Sebastian Ocklenburg
{"title":"Hand Preference in Stuttering: Meta-Analyses.","authors":"Marietta Papadatou-Pastou, Anastasia-Konstantina Papadopoulou, Christos Samsouris, Annakarina Mundorf, Maria-Myrto Valtou, Sebastian Ocklenburg","doi":"10.1007/s11065-023-09617-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reduced hemispheric asymmetries, as well as their behavioral manifestation in the form of atypical handedness (i.e., non-right, left-, or mixed-handedness), are linked to neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder, and several psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia. One neurodevelopmental disorder that is associated with reduced hemispheric asymmetries, but for which findings on behavioral laterality are conflicting, is stuttering. Here, we report a series of meta-analyses of studies that report handedness (assessed as hand preference) levels in individuals who stutter (otherwise healthy) compared to controls. For this purpose, articles were identified via a search in PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo (13 June 2023). On the basis of k = 52 identified studies totaling n = 2590 individuals who stutter and n = 17,148 controls, five random effects meta-analyses were conducted: four using the odds ratio [left-handers (forced choice); left-handers (extreme); mixed-handers; non-right-handers vs. total)] and one using the standardized difference in means as the effect size. We did not find evidence of a left (extreme)- or mixed-handedness difference or a difference in mean handedness scores, but evidence did emerge, when it came to left-handedness (forced-choice) and (inconclusively for) non-right-handedness. Risk-of-bias analysis was not deemed necessary in the context of these meta-analyses. Differences in hand skill or strength of handedness could not be assessed as no pertinent studies were located. Severity of stuttering could not be used s a moderator, as too few studies broke down their data according to severity. Our findings do not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn on whether stuttering is associated with reduced hemispheric asymmetries, at least when it comes to their behavioral manifestation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"924-951"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473670/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-023-09617-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Reduced hemispheric asymmetries, as well as their behavioral manifestation in the form of atypical handedness (i.e., non-right, left-, or mixed-handedness), are linked to neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder, and several psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia. One neurodevelopmental disorder that is associated with reduced hemispheric asymmetries, but for which findings on behavioral laterality are conflicting, is stuttering. Here, we report a series of meta-analyses of studies that report handedness (assessed as hand preference) levels in individuals who stutter (otherwise healthy) compared to controls. For this purpose, articles were identified via a search in PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo (13 June 2023). On the basis of k = 52 identified studies totaling n = 2590 individuals who stutter and n = 17,148 controls, five random effects meta-analyses were conducted: four using the odds ratio [left-handers (forced choice); left-handers (extreme); mixed-handers; non-right-handers vs. total)] and one using the standardized difference in means as the effect size. We did not find evidence of a left (extreme)- or mixed-handedness difference or a difference in mean handedness scores, but evidence did emerge, when it came to left-handedness (forced-choice) and (inconclusively for) non-right-handedness. Risk-of-bias analysis was not deemed necessary in the context of these meta-analyses. Differences in hand skill or strength of handedness could not be assessed as no pertinent studies were located. Severity of stuttering could not be used s a moderator, as too few studies broke down their data according to severity. Our findings do not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn on whether stuttering is associated with reduced hemispheric asymmetries, at least when it comes to their behavioral manifestation.

Abstract Image

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
口吃中的手偏好:荟萃分析。
半球不对称性的减少,以及它们以非典型利手(即非右手、左手或混合利手)形式的行为表现,与神经发育障碍(如自闭症谱系障碍)和几种精神障碍(如精神分裂症)有关。一种与半球不对称性减少有关的神经发育障碍是口吃,但其行为偏侧性的研究结果相互矛盾。在这里,我们报告了一系列研究的荟萃分析,这些研究报告了与对照组相比,口吃(其他方面健康)个体的利手(评估为手偏好)水平。为此,通过在PubMed、Scopus和PsycInfo中的搜索(2023年6月13日)确定了文章。基于k = 52项已确定的研究,总计n = 2590名口吃者 = 17148名对照,进行了五项随机效应荟萃分析:四项使用比值比[左投手(强迫选择);左投手(极端);混合投手;非右投手与总投手],一项使用平均值的标准化差异作为效应大小。我们没有发现左旋(极端)或混合利手性差异或平均利手性得分差异的证据,但当涉及左旋(强迫选择)和非右旋(不确定)时,确实出现了证据。在这些荟萃分析中,不认为有必要进行偏倚风险分析。由于未找到相关研究,因此无法评估手技能或利手力量的差异。口吃的严重程度不能作为调节因素,因为很少有研究根据严重程度分解数据。我们的研究结果无法得出关于口吃是否与半球不对称性减少有关的确切结论,至少在行为表现方面是这样。
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
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
期刊最新文献
Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in Cognitively Healthy APOE ε4 Carriers, Mild Cognitive Impairment, and Alzheimer's Disease: a Meta-analysis. Measurement Error and Methodologic Issues in Analyses of the Proportion of Variance Explained in Cognition. Implementation of Cognitive (Neuropsychological) Interventions for Older Adults in Clinical or Community Settings: A Scoping Review. Verbal and Spatial Working Memory Capacity in Blind Adults and the Possible Influence of Age at Blindness Onset: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis.
×
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