Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31138661›Full record

ArticleeNeuro

Handedness Matters for Motor Control But Not for Prediction.

James Mathew, Fabrice R Sarlegna, Pierre-Michel Bernier, Frederic R Danion

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Assessment of upper limb rehabilitation exercise participation based on trajectory errors and surface electromyography signals].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Enhanced efficiency in visually guided online motor control for actions redirected towards the body midline.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. The neural mechanisms of manual dexterity.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

James MathewAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, INT, Institut Neurosci Timone, 13005 Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5315-5212
Fabrice R SarlegnaAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, 13009 Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-7718-7286
Pierre-Michel BernierDépartement de Kinanthropologie, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke J1k 2R1, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5415-1424
Frederic R DanionAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, INT, Institut Neurosci Timone, 13005 Marseille, France frederic.danion@univ-amu.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-4296-7300

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skilled motor behavior relies on the ability to control the body and to predict the sensory consequences of this control. Although there is ample evidence that manual dexterity depends on handedness, it remains unclear whether control and prediction are similarly impacted. To address this issue, right-handed human participants performed two tasks with either the right or the left hand. In the first task, participants had to move a cursor with their hand so as to track a target that followed a quasi-random trajectory. This hand-tracking task allowed testing the ability to control the hand along an imposed trajectory. In the second task, participants had to track with their eyes a target that was self-moved through voluntary hand motion. This eye-tracking task allowed testing the ability to predict the visual consequences of hand movements. As expected, results showed that hand tracking was more accurate with the right hand than with the left hand. In contrast, eye tracking was similar in terms of spatial and temporal gaze attributes whether the target was moved by the right or the left hand. Although these results extend previous evidence for different levels of control by the two hands, they show that the ability to predict the visual consequences of self-generated actions does not depend on handedness. We propose that the greater dexterity exhibited by the dominant hand in many motor tasks stems from advantages in control, not in prediction. Finally, these findings support the notion that prediction and control are distinct processes.

Indexed as

Functional LateralityMotor SkillsPsychomotor PerformanceAdultEye MovementsFemaleHandHumansMaleYoung Adulteye–hand coordinationhand dominancehumansinternal modelvisuomotor tracking

Identifiers

PMID31138661
PMCPMC6557034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.