ArticlePsychological research2026
The impact of hand dominance on haptic and visual size comparisons.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The present study investigated the impact of handedness on haptic and visual size comparisons. Moreover, we sought to determine whether strength differences between the hands are correlated with lateral differences between judged sizes. Therefore, 80 left-handed and 80 right-handed young adults (without additional constraints on individual characteristics except for those required by the experimental tasks) completed a bimanual haptic size-comparison task, a visual size-comparison task, and strength measurements of fingers, hands, and arms. In the haptic size-comparison task, we observed an impact of handedness: Both left- and right-handers underestimated the size of an object in their dominant hand relative to an object in their non-dominant hand. This hand-related bias was confined to the haptic modality; in the visual size-comparison task, we observed a small overestimation of stimulus size in the right visual hemifield, as compared to the left visual hemifield, in right-handers, but not in left-handers. The strength measurements revealed the expected superiority of the dominant effector over the non-dominant effector, but the strength asymmetries were not correlated with the bias in haptic size-comparisons. The observed impact of handedness on haptic size judgments represents a case of embodied perception in the haptic modality.
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.