儿童平分线任务的荟萃分析。

IF 0.9 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Laterality Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/1357650X.2022.2147941
Danishta Kaul, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou, Gemma Learmonth
{"title":"儿童平分线任务的荟萃分析。","authors":"Danishta Kaul,&nbsp;Marietta Papadatou-Pastou,&nbsp;Gemma Learmonth","doi":"10.1080/1357650X.2022.2147941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meta-analyses have shown subtle, group-level asymmetries of spatial attention in adults favouring the left hemispace (pseudoneglect). However, no meta-analysis has synthesized data on children. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of spatial biases in children aged ≤16 years. Databases (PsycINFO, Web of Science & Scopus) and pre-print servers (bioRxiv, medRxiv & PsyArXiv) were searched for studies involving typically developing children with a mean age of ≤16, who were tested using line bisection. Thirty-three datasets, from 31 studies, involving 2101 children, were included. No bias was identified overall, but there was a small leftward bias in a subgroup where all children were aged ≤16. Moderator analysis found symmetrical neglect, with right-handed actions resulting in right-biased bisections, and left-handed actions in left-biased bisections. Bisections were more leftward in studies with a higher percentage of boys relative to girls. Mean age, hand preference, and control group status did not moderate biases, and there was no difference between children aged ≤7 and ≥7 years, although the number of studies in each moderator analysis was small. There was no evidence of small study bias. We conclude that pseudoneglect may be present in children but is dependent on individual characteristics (sex) and/or task demands (hand used).Registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n68fz/).</p>","PeriodicalId":47387,"journal":{"name":"Laterality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analysis of the line bisection task in children.\",\"authors\":\"Danishta Kaul,&nbsp;Marietta Papadatou-Pastou,&nbsp;Gemma Learmonth\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1357650X.2022.2147941\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Meta-analyses have shown subtle, group-level asymmetries of spatial attention in adults favouring the left hemispace (pseudoneglect). However, no meta-analysis has synthesized data on children. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of spatial biases in children aged ≤16 years. Databases (PsycINFO, Web of Science & Scopus) and pre-print servers (bioRxiv, medRxiv & PsyArXiv) were searched for studies involving typically developing children with a mean age of ≤16, who were tested using line bisection. Thirty-three datasets, from 31 studies, involving 2101 children, were included. No bias was identified overall, but there was a small leftward bias in a subgroup where all children were aged ≤16. Moderator analysis found symmetrical neglect, with right-handed actions resulting in right-biased bisections, and left-handed actions in left-biased bisections. Bisections were more leftward in studies with a higher percentage of boys relative to girls. Mean age, hand preference, and control group status did not moderate biases, and there was no difference between children aged ≤7 and ≥7 years, although the number of studies in each moderator analysis was small. There was no evidence of small study bias. We conclude that pseudoneglect may be present in children but is dependent on individual characteristics (sex) and/or task demands (hand used).Registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n68fz/).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laterality\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laterality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2022.2147941\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laterality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2022.2147941","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

荟萃分析显示,成年人的空间注意力存在微妙的群体不对称,倾向于左半球(假性忽视)。然而,还没有关于儿童的综合数据的荟萃分析。我们对16岁以下儿童的空间偏差进行了随机效应荟萃分析。检索数据库(PsycINFO, Web of Science & Scopus)和预印本服务器(bioRxiv, medRxiv和PsyArXiv)中涉及平均年龄≤16岁的典型发育儿童的研究,这些儿童采用线平分法进行测试。纳入了来自31项研究的33个数据集,涉及2101名儿童。总体上没有发现偏倚,但在所有儿童年龄≤16岁的亚组中存在轻微的偏左。调节分析发现对称忽略,右手动作导致右偏等分,左手动作导致左偏等分。在男孩比例高于女孩比例的研究中,平分线更偏左。平均年龄、手部偏好和对照组状态不存在中度偏倚,并且≤7岁和≥7岁的儿童之间没有差异,尽管每个调节分析的研究数量很少。没有证据表明存在小的研究偏差。我们的结论是,儿童可能存在假性忽视,但这取决于个体特征(性别)和/或任务需求(手使用)。注册:开放科学框架(https://osf.io/n68fz/)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A meta-analysis of the line bisection task in children.

Meta-analyses have shown subtle, group-level asymmetries of spatial attention in adults favouring the left hemispace (pseudoneglect). However, no meta-analysis has synthesized data on children. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of spatial biases in children aged ≤16 years. Databases (PsycINFO, Web of Science & Scopus) and pre-print servers (bioRxiv, medRxiv & PsyArXiv) were searched for studies involving typically developing children with a mean age of ≤16, who were tested using line bisection. Thirty-three datasets, from 31 studies, involving 2101 children, were included. No bias was identified overall, but there was a small leftward bias in a subgroup where all children were aged ≤16. Moderator analysis found symmetrical neglect, with right-handed actions resulting in right-biased bisections, and left-handed actions in left-biased bisections. Bisections were more leftward in studies with a higher percentage of boys relative to girls. Mean age, hand preference, and control group status did not moderate biases, and there was no difference between children aged ≤7 and ≥7 years, although the number of studies in each moderator analysis was small. There was no evidence of small study bias. We conclude that pseudoneglect may be present in children but is dependent on individual characteristics (sex) and/or task demands (hand used).Registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/n68fz/).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
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? Footedness in merlins: Raptors perching in a cold climate. Hemispheric engagement during the processing of affective adjectives-an ERP divided visual field study.
×
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