ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2023
Hand preference and the corpus callosum: Is there really no association?
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-right-handedness and psychiatric disorders: A synthesis of epidemiological, genetic, and neurobiological evidence.World journal of psychiatry · 2026Review
- Effects of motor activity versus cognitive demand on asymmetries in EEG frequency bands and their relation to handedness.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Transcallosal generation of phase-aligned beta bursts underlies TMS-induced interhemispheric inhibition.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- No Incidental Memory Advantage for Mixed Handed vs. Consistent Right Handed Participants: Conflicting Results From Earlier Research.Perceptual and motor skills · 2024Article
- Language network lateralization is reflected throughout the macroscale functional organization of cortex.Nature communications · 2023Article
- FastSurfer-CC: A robust, accurate, and comprehensive framework for corpus callosum morphometry.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Originating from a series of morphometric studies conducted in the 1980s, it appears a widely held belief in cognitive neuroscience that the corpus callosum is larger in left or mixed handers than in right handers (RH). However, a recent meta-analysis challenges this belief by not finding significant differences in corpus callosum size between handedness groups. Yet, relying on the available published data, the meta-analysis was not able to account for a series of factors potential influencing its outcome, such as confounding effects of brain size differences and a restricted spatial resolution of previous callosal segmentation strategies. To address these remaining questions, we here analysed N = 1057 participants' midsagittal corpus callosum of from the Human Connectome Project (HCP 1200 Young Adults) to compare handedness groups based on consistency (e.g., consistent RH vs. mixed handers, MH) and direction of hand preference (e.g., dominant RH vs. dominant left handers). A possible relevance of brain-size differences was addressed by analysing callosal variability by both using forebrain volume (FBV) as covariate and utilising relative area (callosal area/thickness divided by FBV) as a dependent variable. Callosal thickness was analysed at 100 measuring points along the structure to achieve high spatial resolution to detect subregional effects. However, neither of the conducted analyses was able to find significant handedness-related differences in the corpus callosum and the respective effect-sizes estimates were small. For example, comparing MH and consistent RH, the effect sizes for difference in callosal area were below a Cohen's
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.