4.1 Article

An X-linked three allele model of hand preference and hand posture for writing

期刊

LATERALITY
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 149-173

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13576500244000292

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes a genetic model of hand preferences for writing and for handwriting posture (HWP). The challenge of devising an X-linked model for these aspects of human handedness was posed by the results of a large family handedness study (McKeever, 2000) that showed evidence of such linkage. Because X-linkage for handedness has been widely regarded as untenable, the prospects for developing such a model were not initially encouraging, but ultimately a viable model did suggest itself. Family studies of handedness and leading theories of handedness are briefly described, as is some of the research on HWP motivated by the theory of Levy and Nagylaki (1972). It is argued that there is evidence that HWP reflects a biological dictate and not just individual choices or adaptations to writing in a left-to-right direction with the left hand. The model proposes that inverted handwriting posture is not necessarily highly related to speech and language lateralities of sinistrals, but that it reveals an interhemispheric mediation of writing. It is hypothesised that it reflects a specialisation of the left angular gyrus (with some possible extension into the supramarginal gyrus) for the storage of movement and timing sequences of cursive writing, and right hemisphere motor programming of the motor output of writing. It is also argued that no family handedness study conducted to date is adequate for testing the predictions of extant handedness theories, and the often wide variations between the results of family handedness studies are noted. It is suggested that fMRI studies could definitively test the HWP hypotheses of the model and that the hypothesis of X-linkage could be tested definitively should studies of the human genome identify a gene for handedness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据