4.2 Article

Degree of handedness affects intermanual transfer of skill learning

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 190, Issue 3, Pages 317-328

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-008-1472-z

Keywords

handedness; learning; transfer; sequence learning; sensorimotor adaptation; motor

Categories

Funding

  1. UROP Summer Biomedical Research Fellowship
  2. NIH [AG20883, AG24106]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intermanual transfer of skill learning has often been used as a paradigm to study functional specialization and hemispheric interactions in relation to handedness. This literature has not evaluated whether degree of handedness impacts learning and intermanual transfer. Because handedness scores are related to factors that might influence intermanual transfer, such as engagement of the ipsilateral hemisphere during movement (Dassonville et al. in Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:14015-14018, 1997) and corpus callosum volume (Witelson in Science 229:665-668, 1985; Brain 112:799-835, 1989), we tested whether degree of handedness is correlated with transfer magnitude. We had groups of left and right handed participants perform a sensorimotor adaptation task and a sequence learning task. Following learning with either the dominant or nondominant hand, participants transferred to task performance with the other hand. We evaluated whether the magnitude of learning and intermanual transfer were influenced by either direction and/or degree of handedness. Participants exhibited faster sensorimotor adaptation with the right hand, regardless of whether they were right or left handed. In addition, less strongly left handed individuals exhibited better intermanual transfer of sensorimotor adaptation, while less strongly right handed individuals exhibited better intermanual transfer of sequence learning. The findings suggest that involvement of the ipsilateral hemisphere during learning may influence intermanual transfer magnitude.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available