Top

Gepubliceerd in:

10-07-2019 | Original Article

Do left-handers outperform right-handers in paper-and-pencil tests of attention?

Auteurs: Peter Wühr, Ulrich Ansorge

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 8/2020

Abstract

The present study investigated the impact of the dominant hand on performance in two paper-and-pencil tests of visual selective attention (d2-R; FAIR-2). We hypothesized that preview benefits (i.e., preprocessing of stimuli located to the right of the currently fixated item) could improve test performance of left-handers as compared to right-handers because using the right hand could prevent preview benefits simply by covering subsequent stimuli. A group of left-handed students (n = 86) and a group of right-handed students (n = 90) completed both the test d2-R and the test FAIR-2 with their dominant (writing) hand. Results showed that left-handed participants outperformed right-handers in both tests. Hence, when the results of left-handers are to be compared to right-handers or to normative data (which are dominated by right-handers), the impact of preview benefits on left-hander performance should be taken into account.

vorige artikel Do ostensive cues affect object processing in children with and without autism? A test of natural pedagogy theory

volgende artikel Investigating the mediating effect of working memory on intentional forgetting in dysphoria

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

KL is shorthand for the German word “Konzentrationsleistung”, which could be translated to “concentration performance” (CP; cf. Bates & Lemay Jr., 2004).

We are, of course, aware of the fact that left-handed people are much less frequent than right-handed people in the general population. Despite these different base rates, we tested similar numbers of left- and right-handers to establish comparable statistical power in both groups. Similar group sizes were achieved through convenience sampling: We had two calls open, one for right- and one for left-handers. As there are more right- than left-handers in the general population, data collection for the right-handers concluded earlier and data collection with the left-handers continued over a longer period of time.

It was not intended to provide the two groups of participants with different amounts of time for working on a row. This difference actually resulted from deficient communication. In fact, the manual for the d2-R recommends 20 s for a stimulus row. In contrast, the manual for the d2 (which contained shorter stimulus rows) recommended reducing the time per row to 15 s if ceiling effects were to be expected.

We used KL for sorting participants into three classes of performance in the d2-R, and we used L for sorting participants into three classes of performance in the FAIR-2.

Bates, M. E., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2004). The d2 test of attention: Construct validity and extensions in scoring techniques. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561770410307X.CrossRefPubMed

Brickenkamp, R. (1962). Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test d2 [Attention and concentration test d2]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Brickenkamp, R. (1998). d2. Test d’attention concentrée [d2. Test of attention and concentration]. Paris, France: Les Editions du Centre de psychologie Appliquée.

Brickenkamp, R. (2002). Test d2: Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test (9. Auflage) [Test d2: Attention and concentration test (9th edition)]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Brickenkamp, R., Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Liepmann, D. (2010). Test d2-Revision: Aufmerksamkeits- und Konzentrationstest. [Test d2-revision: Attention and concentration test.]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. (1998). The d2 test of attention. Seattle: Hogrefe and Huber Publishers.

Brockmole, J. R., Davoli, C. C., Abrams, R. A., & Witt, J. K. (2013). The world within reach: Effects of hand posture and tool use on visual cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412465065.CrossRef

Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112(4), 777–813. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.777.CrossRefPubMed

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefPubMed

Fernández-Castillo, A. M., & Caurcel, M. (2015). State test anxiety, selective attention and concentration in university students. International Journal of Psychology, 50, 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12092.CrossRefPubMed

Fofanova, J., & Vollrath, M. (2011). Distraction while driving: The case of older drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14, 638–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2011.08.005.CrossRef

Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2007). The role of domain-specific practice, handedness, and starting age in chess. Developmental Psychology, 43, 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.159.CrossRefPubMed

Gozli, D. G., West, G. L., & Pratt, J. (2012). Hand position alters vision by biasing processing through different visual pathways. Cognition, 124(2), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.008.CrossRefPubMed

Halpern, D. F., Haviland, M. G., & Killian, C. D. (1998). Handedness and sex differences in intelligence: Evidence from the Medical College Admission Test. Brain and Cognition, 38(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1998.1021.CrossRefPubMed

Inglis, J., & Lawson, J. S. (1984). Handedness, sex and intelligence. Cortex, 20, 447–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(84)80014-3.CrossRefPubMed

Llaurens, V., Raymond, M., & Faurie, C. (2009). Why are some people left-handed? An evolutionary perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 881–894. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0235.CrossRef

Loffing, F., & Hagemann, N. (2015). Pushing through evolution? Incidence and fight records of left-oriented fighters in professional boxing history. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 20, 270–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2014.961471.CrossRef

Luck, S. J., & Vecera, S. P. (2002). Attention. In H. Pashler & S. Yantis (Eds.), Stevens handbook of experimental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 235–286)., Sensation and perception New York: Wiley.

McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception and Psychophysics, 17(6), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203972.CrossRef

McManus, I. C. (2002). Right hand, left hand. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Milenkovic, S., & Dragovic, M. (2013). Modification of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: A replication study. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 18, 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2012.683196.CrossRef

Moosbrugger, H., & Oelschlägel, J. (1996). FAIR. Frankfurter Aufmerksamkeitsinventar. [FAIR. Frankfurt Attention Inventory.]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

Moosbrugger, H., & Oelschlägel, J. (2011). FAIR-2. Frankfurter Aufmerksamkeitsinventar 2. [FAIR-2. Frankfurt Attention Inventory 2.]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

Müller, A., Petru, R., & Angerer, P. (2011). Cognitive demands and the relationship between age and workload in apron control. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 82, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.2797.2011.CrossRef

Neubauer, A. C., & Knorr, E. (1998). Three paper-and-pencil tests for speed of information processing: Psychometric properties and correlations with intelligence. Intelligence, 26(2), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0160-2896(99)80058-0.CrossRef

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.CrossRef

Piro, J. M. (1998). Handedness and intelligence: Patterns of hand preference in gifted and nongifted children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 14, 619–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649809540732.CrossRef

Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90005-5.CrossRef

Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461.CrossRef

Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The EZ Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26(4), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X03000104.CrossRefPubMed

Roth, M., Schmitt, V., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2010). Psychologische Diagnostik in der Praxis: Ergebnisse einer Befragung unter BDP-Mitgliedern [Psychological diagnostics in practice: Results of a survey among BDP members]. Report Psychologie, 35, 118–128.

Schorr, A. (1995). Stand und Perspektiven psychologischer Diagnostik in der Praxis. Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Befragung westdeutscher Psychologen. [Status and perspective of psychological diagnostics in practice. Results of a survey among psychologists from Western Germany]. Diagnostica, 41, 3–20.

Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 5–35. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0219-2.CrossRef

Somers, M., Shields, L. S., Boks, M. P., Kahn, R. S., & Sommer, I. E. (2015). Cognitive benefits of right-handedness: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 51, 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.003.CrossRefPubMed

Stahl, J., & Rammsayer, T. H. (2007). Identification of sensorimotor components accounting for individual variability in Zahlen-Verbindungs-Test (ZVT) performance. Intelligence, 35(6), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.12.001.CrossRef

Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., Flehmig, H. C., & Huestegge, L. (2018). Methodology of performance scoring in the d2 sustained-attention test: Cumulative-reliability functions and practical guidelines. Psychological Assessment, 30(3), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas000048.CrossRefPubMed

Tseng, P., & Bridgeman, B. (2011). Improved change detection with nearby hands. Experimental Brain Research, 209(2), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2544-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Veale, J. F. (2014). Edinburgh Handedness Inventory-Short Form: A revised version based on confirmatory factor analysis. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition, 19, 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2013.783045.CrossRef

Weideman, A. (2019). Degrees of adequacy: The disclosure of levels of validity in language assessment. Koers-Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 84(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.19108/KOERS.84.1.2451.CrossRef

Xi, X. (2010). How do we go about investigating test fairness? Language Testing, 27(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209349465.CrossRef

Titel: Do left-handers outperform right-handers in paper-and-pencil tests of attention?
Auteurs: Peter Wühr
Ulrich Ansorge
Publicatiedatum: 10-07-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01224-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2020

The devil is in the details: investigating the influence of emotion on event memory using a simulated event

Original Article

When perception intrudes on 2D grasping: evidence from Garner interference

Original Article

Asymmetrical effects of control on the expression of implicit sequence learning

Original Article

Inattention and task switching performance: the role of predictability, working memory load and goal neglect

Open Access
Original Article

Do people really prefer verbal probabilities?

Original Article

Cueing distraction: electrophysiological evidence for anticipatory active suppression of distractor location

Original Article