Comparing Dominant and Non-Dominant Hand Performance With Force Changes In a Two Hand Equilibrium Task: A Challenge to Dominant Hand Theories

Khanjari, Yaser

doi:10.32598/biomechanics.7.4.300.2

Volume 7, Issue 4 (2-2022) J Sport Biomech 2022, 7(4): 290-302 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.32598/biomechanics.7.4.300.2

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Khanjari Y. Comparing Dominant and Non-Dominant Hand Performance With Force Changes In a Two Hand Equilibrium Task: A Challenge to Dominant Hand Theories. J Sport Biomech 2022; 7 (4) :290-302
URL: http://biomechanics.iauh.ac.ir/article-1-264-en.html

Comparing Dominant and Non-Dominant Hand Performance With Force Changes In a Two Hand Equilibrium Task: A Challenge to Dominant Hand Theories

Yaser Khanjari ^*

Department of Motor Learning, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract: (4225 Views)

Objective: Although most studies believe that the dominant hand performs better than the non-dominant hand in performing various tasks, there is still the challenge among researchers as to why the non-dominant hand performs better than the dominant hand in certain situations and tasks. The aim of this study was to compare dominant and non-dominant hand performance with force changes in a two-handed balance task.
Methods: The samples of this study consisted of 30 male and female subjects with age (y) Mean±SD of 28±6.5. This research was conducted in Shiraz Health Center. In this study, a Huber device was used to measure hand function.
Results: The results of the independent t-test showed that when the force on the handle sensor was the same in both hands, the performance of the dominant and non-dominant hand did not differ significantly (P>0.05). However, the dominant hand performed better when the dominant hand-applied more force and the non-dominant hand performed better than the dominant hand when the non-dominant hand applied more force to the handles (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the performance of the superior hand is not always better than the non-superior hand and the performance of both hands depends on the type of task, synthetic factors (force), and the amount of attention to each hand. These results support the theory of dynamic systems and the specialized hemisphere model in hand control.

Keywords: Motor Program, Kinetics, Two Handed Coordination

Full-Text [PDF 1314 kb] (1239 Downloads) | | Full-Text (HTML) (2042 Views)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2021/07/25 | Accepted: 2021/12/19 | Published: 2022/03/1

References

1. Schmidt RA. A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol Rev. 1975; 82(4):225-60. [DOI:10.1037/h0076770]

2. Schmidt RA, Zelaznik H, Hawkins B, Frank JS, Quinn JT Jr. Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychol Rev. 1979; 86(5):415-51. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.86.5.415]

3. Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL. Information processing in movement organization and execution. In: Attention and Performance VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1980. p. 29-57.

4. Turvey MT. Preliminaries to a theory of action with reference to vision. In: Shaw R, Bransford J, editors. Perceiving, acting and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1977. p. 211-65.

5. Noguchi T, Demura S, Aoki H. Superiority of the dominant and nondominant hands in static strength and controlled force exertion. Percept Mot Skills. 2009; 109(2):339-46. [DOI:10.2466/pms.109.2.339-346]

6. Waterhouse C. The Effect of Extended Practice on EMG, Kinematics and Accuracy in Dominant and Non-dominant Dart Throwing [dissertation]. Auckland: University of Auckland; 2014.

7. Kuhtz-Buschbeck JP, Keller P. Muscle activity in throwing with the dominant and non-dominant arm. Cogent Med. 2019; 6(1):1678221. [DOI:10.1080/2331205X.2019.1678221]

8. Khanjari Y, Saemi E, Abedi A, Motamed Y, Soltani M. SYNERGY PATTERNS OF BRAIN ACTIVITY DURING LEARNING OF THE DART THROWING SKILL WITH THE DOMINANT AND NON-DOMINANT HAND. S Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Rec. 2020; 42(2):45-60.

9. Wang J, Sainburg RL. The dominant and nondominant arms are specialized for stabilizing different features of task performance. Exp Brain Res. 2007; 178(4):565-70. [DOI:10.1007/s00221-007-0936-x]

10. Bravi R, Cohen EJ, Martinelli A, Minciacchi D, Tognoli E. When non-dominant is better than dominant: Kinesiotape modulates asymmetries in timed performance during a synchronization-continuation task. Front Integr Neurosci. 2017; 11:21. [DOI:10.3389/fnint.2017.00021]

11. Couillandre A, Lewton-Brain P, Portero P. Changes in balance and strength parameters induced by training on a motorised rotating platform: A study on healthy subjects. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2008; 51(1):1-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.annrmp.2007.11.001]

12. Armstrong CA, Oldham JA. A comparison of dominant and non-dominant hand strengths. J Hand Surg Br. 1999; 24(4):421-5. [DOI:10.1054/JHSB.1999.0236]

13. Farthing JP, Chilibeck PD, Binsted G. Cross-education of arm muscular strength is unidirectional in right-handed individuals. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005; 37(9):1594-600. [DOI:10.1249/01.mss.0000177588.74448.75]

14. Noguchi T, Demura S, Nagasawa Y, Uchiyama M. An examination of practice and laterality effects on the purdue pegboard and moving beans with tweezers. Percept Mot Skills. 2006; 102(1):265-74. [DOI:10.2466/pms.102.1.265-274]

15. Schmidt SL, Oliveira RM, Krahe TE, Filgueiras CC. The effects of hand preference and gender on finger tapping performance asymmetry by the use of an infra-red light measurement device. Neuropsychologia. 2000; 38(5):529-34. [DOI:10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00120-7]

16. Bohannon RW. Grip strength: a summary of studies comparing dominant and nondominant limb measurements. Percept Mot Skills. 2003; 96(3):728-30. [DOI:10.2466/pms.2003.96.3.728]

17. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9(1):97-113. [DOI:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4]

18. Touwen BC. Laterality and dominance. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1972; 14(6):747-55. [DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1972.tb03318.x]

19. Pellegrini AM, Andrade EC, Teixeira LA. Attending to the non-preferred hand improves bimanual coordination in children. Hum Mov Sci. 2004; 23(3-4):447-60. [DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2004.08.017]

20. Kugler PN, Kelso JS, Turvey MT. On the concept of coordinative structures as dissipative structures: I. Theoretical lines of convergence. In: Stelmach GE, Requin J, editors. Tutorials in motor behavior. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1980. p. 3-47. [DOI:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61936-6]

21. Ozcan A, Tulum Z, Pinar L, Baskurt F. Comparison of pressure pain threshold, grip strength, dexterity and touch pressure of dominant and non-dominant hands within and between right-and left-handed subjects. J Korean Med Sci. 2004; 19(6):874-8. [DOI:10.3346/jkms.2004.19.6.874]

22. De Gennaro L, Ferrara M, Bertini M. Handedness is mainly associated with an asymmetry of corticospinal excitability and not of transcallosal inhibition. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 115(6):1305-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2004.01.014]

23. Adam A, De Luca CJ, Erim Z. Hand dominance and motor unit firing behavior. J Neurophysiol. 1998; 80(3):1373-82. [DOI:10.1152/jn.1998.80.3.1373]

24. Riek S, Tresilian JR, Mon-Williams M, Coppard VL, Carson RG. Bimanual aiming and overt attention: one law for two hands. Exp Brain Res. 2003; 153(1):59-75. [DOI:10.1007/s00221-003-1581-7]

25. Provins KA. The specificity of motor skill and manual asymmetry: A review of the evidence and its implications. J Mot Behav. 1997; 29(2):183-92. [DOI:10.1080/00222899709600832]

26. Wuyts IJ, Summers JJ, Carson RG, Byblow WD, Semjen A. Attention as a mediating variable in the dynamics of bimanual coordination. Hum Mov Sci. 1996; 15(6):877-97. [DOI:10.1016/S0167-9457(96)00033-4]

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb