Volume 7, Issue 4 (2-2022)                   J Sport Biomech 2022, 7(4): 290-299 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
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) :290-299
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:   (2356 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 1128 kb]   (733 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (907 Views)  
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2021/07/25 | Accepted: 2021/12/19 | Published: 2022/03/1
References
1. Schmidt, R.A., A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological review, 1975. 82(4): p. 225. [DOI:10.1037/h0076770]
2. Schmidt, R.A., et al., Motor-output variability: a theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psychological review, 1979. 86(5): p. 415. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.86.5.415]
3. Marteniuk, R.G., &MacKenzie, C. L., Information processing in movement organization and execution. Attention and Performance, 1980(VIII): p. 29-57.
4. Turvey, M.T., Preliminaries to a theory of action with reference to vision. Perceiving, acting and knowing, 1977: p. 211-265.
5. Noguchi, T., S. Demura, and H. Aoki, Superiority of the dominant and nondominant hands in static strength and controlled force exertion. Perceptual and motor skills, 2009. 109(2): p. 339-346. [DOI:10.2466/pms.109.2.339-346] [PMID]
6. Waterhouse, C., The Effect of Extended Practice on EMG, Kinematics and Accuracy in Dominant and Non-dominant Dart Throwing. 2014.
7. Kuhtz-Buschbeck, J.P. and P. Keller, Muscle activity in throwing with the dominant and non-dominant arm. Cogent Medicine, 2019. 6(1): p. 1678221. [DOI:10.1080/2331205X.2019.1678221]
8. Khanjari, Y., et al., SYNERGY PATTERNS OF BRAIN ACTIVITY DURING LEARNING OF THE DART THROWING SKILL WITH THE DOMINANT AND NON-DOMINANT HAND. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education & Recreation, 2020. 42(2).
9. Wang, J. and R.L. Sainburg, The dominant and nondominant arms are specialized for stabilizing different features of task performance. Experimental Brain Research, 2007. 178(4): p. 565-570. [DOI:10.1007/s00221-007-0936-x] [PMID]
10. Bravi, R., et al., When non-dominant is better than dominant: Kinesiotape modulates asymmetries in timed performance during a synchronization-continuation task. Frontiers in integrative neuroscience, 2017. 11: p. 21. [DOI:10.3389/fnint.2017.00021] [PMID] [PMCID]
11. Couillandre, A., et al. Changes in balance and strength parameters induced by training on a motorised rotating platform: A study on healthy subjects. in Annales de réadaptation et de médecine physique. 2008. Elsevier. [DOI:10.1016/j.annrmp.2007.11.001] [PMID]
12. Armstrong, C. and J.A. Oldham, A comparison of dominant and non-dominant hand strengths. The Journal of Hand Surgery: British & European Volume, 1999. 24(4): p. 421-425. [DOI:10.1054/JHSB.1999.0236] [PMID]
13. Farthing, J.P., P.D. Chilibeck, and G. Binsted, Cross-education of arm muscular strength is unidirectional in right-handed individuals. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2005. 37(9): p. 1594-1600. [DOI:10.1249/01.mss.0000177588.74448.75] [PMID]
14. Noguchi, T., et al., An examination of practice and laterality effects on the purdue pegboard and moving beans with tweezers. Perceptual and motor skills, 2006. 102(1): p. 265-274. [DOI:10.2466/pms.102.1.265-274] [PMID]
15. Schmidt, S.L., et al., 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): p. 529-534. [DOI:10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00120-7]
16. Bohannon, R.W., Grip strength: a summary of studies comparing dominant and nondominant limb measurements. Perceptual and motor skills, 2003. 96(3): p. 728-730. [DOI:10.2466/pms.2003.96.3.728] [PMID]
17. Oldfield, R.C., The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 1971. 9(1): p. 97-113. [DOI:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4]
18. Touwen, B.C., Laterality and dominance. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 1972. 14(6): p. 747-755. [DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1972.tb03318.x] [PMID]
19. Pellegrini, A., E. Andrade, and L. Teixeira, Attending to the non-preferred hand improves bimanual coordination in children. Human Movement Science, 2004. 23(3-4): p. 447-460. [DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2004.08.017] [PMID]
20. Kugler, P.N., J.S. Kelso, and M. Turvey, On the concept of coordinative structures as dissipative structures: I. Theoretical lines of convergence. Tutorials in motor behavior, 1980. 3: p. 3-47. [DOI:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61936-6]
21. Ozcan, A., et al., 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. Journal of Korean medical science, 2004. 19(6): p. 874-878. [DOI:10.3346/jkms.2004.19.6.874] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. De Gennaro, L., et al., Handedness is mainly associated with an asymmetry of corticospinal excitability and not of transcallosal inhibition. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2004. 115(6): p. 1305-1312. [DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2004.01.014] [PMID]
23. Adam, A., C.J.D. Luca, and Z. Erim, Hand dominance and motor unit firing behavior. Journal of neurophysiology, 1998. 80(3): p. 1373-1382. [DOI:10.1152/jn.1998.80.3.1373] [PMID]
24. Riek, S., et al., Bimanual aiming and overt attention: one law for two hands. Experimental brain research, 2003. 153(1): p. 59-75. [DOI:10.1007/s00221-003-1581-7] [PMID]
25. Provins, K., The specificity of motor skill and manual asymmetry: A review of the evidence and its implications. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1997. 29(2): p. 183-192. [DOI:10.1080/00222899709600832] [PMID]
26. Wuyts, I.J., et al., Attention as a mediating variable in the dynamics of bimanual coordination. Human Movement Science, 1996. 15(6): p. 877-897. [DOI:10.1016/S0167-9457(96)00033-4]
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Sport Biomechanics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb