Cargando…

The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: Getting the Measure of Manual Asymmetries

Some studies have shown that manual asymmetries decrease in older age. These results have often been explained with reference to models of reduced hemispheric specialisation. An alternative explanation, however, is that hand differences are subtle, and capturing them requires tasks that yield optima...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Raw, Rachael K., Wilkie, Richard M., White, Alan, Williams, Justin H. G., Mon-Williams, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26023774
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128322
_version_ 1782373815233282048
author Raw, Rachael K.
Wilkie, Richard M.
White, Alan
Williams, Justin H. G.
Mon-Williams, Mark
author_facet Raw, Rachael K.
Wilkie, Richard M.
White, Alan
Williams, Justin H. G.
Mon-Williams, Mark
author_sort Raw, Rachael K.
collection PubMed
description Some studies have shown that manual asymmetries decrease in older age. These results have often been explained with reference to models of reduced hemispheric specialisation. An alternative explanation, however, is that hand differences are subtle, and capturing them requires tasks that yield optimal performance with both hands. Whereas the hemispheric specialisation account implies that reduced manual asymmetries should be reliably observed in older adults, the ‘measurement difficulty’ account suggests that manual asymmetries will be hard to detect unless a task has just the right level of difficulty—i.e. within the ‘Goldilocks Zone’, where it is not too easy or too hard, but just right. Experiment One tested this hypothesis and found that manual asymmetries were only detected when participants performed in this zone; specifically, performance on a tracing task was only superior in the preferred hand when task constraints were high (i.e. fast speed tracing). Experiment Two used three different tasks to examine age differences in manual asymmetries; one task produced no asymmetries, whilst two tasks revealed asymmetries in both younger and older groups (with poorer overall performance in the old group across all tasks). Experiment Three revealed task-dependent asymmetries in both age groups, but highlighted further detection difficulties linked with the metric of performance and compensatory strategies used by participants. Results are discussed with reference to structural learning theory, whereby we suggest that the processes of inter-manual transfer lead to relatively small performance differences between the hands (despite a strong phenomenological sense of performance disparities).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4449126
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44491262015-06-09 The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: Getting the Measure of Manual Asymmetries Raw, Rachael K. Wilkie, Richard M. White, Alan Williams, Justin H. G. Mon-Williams, Mark PLoS One Research Article Some studies have shown that manual asymmetries decrease in older age. These results have often been explained with reference to models of reduced hemispheric specialisation. An alternative explanation, however, is that hand differences are subtle, and capturing them requires tasks that yield optimal performance with both hands. Whereas the hemispheric specialisation account implies that reduced manual asymmetries should be reliably observed in older adults, the ‘measurement difficulty’ account suggests that manual asymmetries will be hard to detect unless a task has just the right level of difficulty—i.e. within the ‘Goldilocks Zone’, where it is not too easy or too hard, but just right. Experiment One tested this hypothesis and found that manual asymmetries were only detected when participants performed in this zone; specifically, performance on a tracing task was only superior in the preferred hand when task constraints were high (i.e. fast speed tracing). Experiment Two used three different tasks to examine age differences in manual asymmetries; one task produced no asymmetries, whilst two tasks revealed asymmetries in both younger and older groups (with poorer overall performance in the old group across all tasks). Experiment Three revealed task-dependent asymmetries in both age groups, but highlighted further detection difficulties linked with the metric of performance and compensatory strategies used by participants. Results are discussed with reference to structural learning theory, whereby we suggest that the processes of inter-manual transfer lead to relatively small performance differences between the hands (despite a strong phenomenological sense of performance disparities). Public Library of Science 2015-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4449126/ /pubmed/26023774 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128322 Text en © 2015 Raw et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Raw, Rachael K.
Wilkie, Richard M.
White, Alan
Williams, Justin H. G.
Mon-Williams, Mark
The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: Getting the Measure of Manual Asymmetries
title The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: Getting the Measure of Manual Asymmetries
title_full The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: Getting the Measure of Manual Asymmetries
title_fullStr The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: Getting the Measure of Manual Asymmetries
title_full_unstemmed The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: Getting the Measure of Manual Asymmetries
title_short The ‘Goldilocks Zone’: Getting the Measure of Manual Asymmetries
title_sort ‘goldilocks zone’: getting the measure of manual asymmetries
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26023774
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128322
work_keys_str_mv AT rawrachaelk thegoldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT wilkierichardm thegoldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT whitealan thegoldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT williamsjustinhg thegoldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT monwilliamsmark thegoldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT rawrachaelk goldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT wilkierichardm goldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT whitealan goldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT williamsjustinhg goldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries
AT monwilliamsmark goldilockszonegettingthemeasureofmanualasymmetries