↓ Skip to main content

What Are the Contributions of Handedness, Sighting Dominance, Hand Used to Bisect, and Visuospatial Line Processing to the Behavioral Line Bisection Bias?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What Are the Contributions of Handedness, Sighting Dominance, Hand Used to Bisect, and Visuospatial Line Processing to the Behavioral Line Bisection Bias?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01688
Pubmed ID
Authors

Audrey Ochando, Laure Zago

Abstract

In a sample of 60 French participants, we examined whether the variability in the behavioral deviation measured during the classical "paper and pencil" line bisection task was explained by individual laterality factors such as handedness and eye sighting dominance, as well as the hand used to bisect, and the spatial position of the line to bisect. The results showed the expected main effects of line position and hand used to bisect, as well as some interactions between factors. Specifically, the effect of the hand used to bisect on the deviation bias was different as a function of handedness and line position. In right-handers, there was a strong difference between the biases elicited by each hand, producing a hand-used asymmetry, observed for each spatial position of the line. In left-handers, there was no difference in deviation as a function of hand used to perform the bisection, except when all factors triggered attention toward the left side such as bisecting left-displaced lines, with the left dominant hand, producing a strong leftward deviation as compared to the reduced bias exhibited with the right non-dominant hand. Finally, the eye sighting dominance interacted with handedness and line position. Left-handers with a right sighting dominance showed a leftward bias when they bisected left-displaced lines, while right-handers with a left sighting dominance showed an inversed bias when they bisected rightward lines. Taken together, these findings suggest that the behavioral deviation bias relies on the integration of the hemispheric weights of the visuospatial processing of the stimuli, and the motoric component of the hand used to bisect, as well as those linked to individual laterality factors. When all these factors producing asymmetric cerebral activation coincide in the same direction, then their joint effect will provide the strongest asymmetric behavioral biases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 31%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Engineering 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,626,495
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,572
of 30,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,241
of 337,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#421
of 753 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 753 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.