THE INFLUENCE OF LATERAL DOMINANCE 0N
ACCURACY AND DIRECTIONAL ERRORS WHEN
THROWING AT A TARGET

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY .
EMMA JEAN McCONKIE
1974

II I IMIIIIQ' --g.,,.x-m..vl.4_l

, —
:5, Y-

   

I H V
I.. l. .‘ a I Q -
K ' I P ’5’ . Z k' ’

.
‘3“‘

if:- ‘_. . 2’3
Ui‘zLV‘gmii)’ w;

‘2 __ __ __ 3".

W— '-

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE INFLUENCE OF LATERAL DOMINANCE ON
ACCURACY AND DIRECTIONAL ERRORS
WHEN THROWING AT A TARGET

BY

Emma Jean McConkie

The purpose of the present study was to determine
the influence of hand dominance, eye dominance, and
combinations of hand and eye dominance on the accuracy
of throwing at a target, and on the direction of errors
made when throwing at a target. The directions considered
were the right and left halves of the target and the
upper and lower halves of the target.

Eleven subjects were randomly selected from each
of four laterality strata (right-handed and right-eyed;
right-handed and left-eyed; left-handed and right-eyed;
left-handed and left-eyed) which had been obtained from
a population of 238 high school girls at Eastern High
School, Lansing, Michigan. They ranged in age from 15
years to 19 years. The mean age was 16.2 years. Approxi—
mately 82 percent of the sample were Sophomore girls
enrolled in a required physical education program. The
' remaining 18 percent were Junior or Senior girls enrolled

in an elective physical education program.

Eac‘
during each
of each see
twenty-five
directiona
tional err
five trial
analyses .

A?
test the
dominance
dominance
of throw
errors .
central a

Emma Jean McConkie

Each subject was given 30 trials of dart throwing
during each of two class periods. The first five throws
of each session were allowed for practice and the last
twenty-five throws were scored for accuracy, right-left
directional error (horizontal), and above-below direc-
tional error (vertical). Darts were thrown in sets of
five trials each and scores by sets were used in the
analyses.

Analysis of variance was used to statistically
test the obtained data. The results indicated hand
dominance, eye dominance, and combinations of hand and eye
dominance failed to significantly influence the accuracy
of throwing at a target and the direction of throwing
errors. §_priori comparisons tests of ipsilateral and

contralateral-dominant groups also failed to detect a

significant effect of dominance on throwing performance.

THE INFLUENCE OF LATERAL DOMINANCE ON
ACCURACY AND DIRECTIONAL ERRORS

WHEN THROWING AT A TARGET

BY

Emma Jean McConkie

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Physical Education

1974

To

my family,

for their love and understanding

ii

of my G
PIEpara
Dr. Joh
stages

on the

HeUSner
invalua

Worth-w

of Mr .

Miller I

Eastern

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to the members
of my Guidance Committee, who greatly aided me in the
preparation of this thesis. I extend Special thanks to
Dr. John Haubenstricker, who guided me throughout all
stages of the work; to Dr. Vern Seefeldt, who advised me
on the proposal andon the final draft; and to Dr. William
Heusner, who gave so willingly of his time to provide
invaluable statistical assistance. Each of these men made
worth-while suggestions which resulted in improvements.

I would also like to acknowledge the cooperation
of Mr. Don Johnson, Principal of Eastern High School;

Miss Jean Robinson, Miss Candy Whitmore, and Miss Gloria
Miller, Physical Education Instructors at Eastern High
School; and the girl's Physical Education classes at
Eastern High School for their respective roles in the
collection of the data. Sincere appreciation is expressed
to the women students at Michigan State University, who

volunteered as subjects for the pilot study.

iii

LIST 0:
LIST 0;

Chapte

II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O I O O O O O O 0

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I.

II.

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . .

Lateral Dominance . . . . . . .
Need for the Study . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . .
Research Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Scope of the Study . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . . .
Significance of the Study . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . .

RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . .

Theories of Dominance Development
Anatomical . . . .
Hereditary . . . .
Social . . . . . .

Characteristics of Dominance
Eye Dominance . . .
Hand Dominance . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . .

Incidence of Dominance in the Population

Measurement of Dominance . . . . .
Tests of Eyedness . . . . . .
Tests of Handedness . . . . .

Dominance and Motor Proficiency . . .
Unilateral Dominance . . . . .
Contralateral Dominance . . . .
Mixed-Lateral Dominance . . .
Dominance and Accuracy of Direction

iv

Page
vi

vii

ooooxloxmwwtu H

|—'
O

wLouwCJBJNbohJNPHPJHPHPJHPH
occa:a+aann¢>mc3annoxnwohuo

Chapter

III.

IV.

Chapter Page
III. RESEARCH METHODS . . . . . . . . . . 42

SU-bjects O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O 42
Determination of Eye Dominance . . 44

Determination of Hand Dominance . . 45
Research Design . . . . . . . . . 46
Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . 46
Measures . . . . . . . . . . 49

Procedures . u. . . . . . . . . . 50
Data Collection . . . . . . . . 51
Scoring and Recording . . . . . . 52

Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . 53
Statistical Procedures . . . . . 54
Significance Level . . . . . . . 55

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . 56
Relationships Among Dependent Variables . 56

Statistical Results . . . . . . . . 57

Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . 58

R-L Directional Error . . . . . . 61

A-B Directional Error . . . . . . 65

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 68

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 72

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 73
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 74

APPENDICES
A. Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
B. Eye Dominance Test . . . . . . . . . 87
C. Raw Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Table

Table

3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
A-l
A-2

C-l

LIST OF TABLES

Laterality of Sophomore Population . .
Correlations Between Dependent Variables
ANOVA of Accuracy Scores . . . . .
ANOVA of R-L Directional Error . . .
ANOVA of A-B Directional Error . . .
Pilot Study Statistics . . . . . .
Pilot Study Raw Data . . . . . . .

Raw Data . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

43
57
60
63
68
78
81

89

Figure
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

A‘1

Figure

3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7

A-l

LIST OF FIGURES

The Target Face . . . . .

Overall Accuracy by Laterality Groups

Ipsilateral-Contralateral Accuracy

R—L Directional Error by Laterality Groups

Ipsilateral-Contralateral R—L Error .

Correction Scores from Means of Handedness

A-B Directional Error by Laterality Groups

Ipsilateral-Contralateral A—B Error .

Learning Curves for Dart Throwing

vii

Page

47
59
60
62
64
65
66
67

79

skills
Peltforn
Marion
identi;
Source
that O

SubSeq

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

One important aspect of the psychometric trend in
skills research is the study of individual variations in
performance and the factors that contribute to skilled
performances. Investigators continue to delve into the
identification of differences between individuals as one
source of variation. Once identified, the question becomes
that of determining the effect these differences have on
subsequent behavior or performance.

Many of the existing differences between the sexes
that affect motor ability are obvious. Other differences
that exist between and within individuals of the same
sex are not apparent. Some of these include: (a) domi-
nance of eye, hand, or foot (Irwin, 1938); (b) movement
time between preferred and non-preferred limbs, and
between arms and legs (Letter, 1960; Bartee, 1971);

(c) kinesthetic perceptivity between preferred and non-
preferred arms (Phillips and Summers, 1954); and (d) a
more perfect eye-moving apparatus in champion atheletes

than in non-athletes (Graybiel, Jokl, and Trapp, 1955).

domina.
of mot
Are th
ipsila
there

disadx
influe
and t]
The e
targe

Prese

patte

PletE

SQve:

the .

In 1
Sub]-
The

Out!

and

The problem of individual differences in lateral
dominance and how these differences influence performance
of motor skills has not been conclusively documented.

Are there activities in which it is an advantage to have
ipsilateral dominance of hand and eye? Similarly, are

there activities in which contralateral dominance is a
disadvantage? Perhaps only certain skills are significantly
influenced by dominance. If so, they should be identified
and the physical education teacher made aware of them.

The effect of lateral dominance on the performance of a
target throwing task was selected as the focus of the

present study.

Lateral Dominance

 

The relationship of various lateral dominance
patterns to the performance of motor skills has received
increasing attention since the mid-1950's. As revealed
in the review of literature, Chapter II, results of com-
pleted studies are confusing and often conflicting.
Several authors have reached conclusions which indicate
the unilaterally dominant individual is superior in motor
ability (Poindexter, 1965; Robinson, 1965; Kisler, 1971).
In 1958, Way claimed the superiority of mixed-dominant
subjects on motor ability tests and in selected skills.
The right-eyed, left-handed men in Roth's study (1942)
outperformed all other laterality combinations of hand

and eye. In a study of baseball players, Baughman (1968)

found con
did unila

C
investiga
directior
laterals
dominant
the othe:
activitie

I
r{Wealed
IEOl‘mance
Frahm. 15
may not 1

a Viable

found contralaterals achieved more bases on balls than
did unilaterals.

Only one study of gross motor skills specifically
investigated the relationship of hand—eye dominance to
directional errors. Shick (1971) reported that contra-
laterals made more errors toward the side of their
dominant eye in basketball free throw shooting than to
the other side. Does this phenomenon occur in other
activities where accuracy of direction is important?

Although the majority of the literature has not
revealed specific lateralities to be a factor in per-
formance of skills (Sinclair and Smith, 1957; Fox, 1957;
Frahm, 1967; Adams, 1965; Cooke, 1969), all activities
may not be similarly affected. Thus, the issue remains

a viable one for investigation.

Need for the Study

 

The reasons for the development of a particular
dominance pattern in an individual remain a mystery. It
appears to be similar to the issue of 1.0. in that
heredity is a factor, but the role of environment and
the changes that result from experiences affect its
development. .

The practical significance of dominance in eyedness
differs considerably from that in handedness. Binocular
vision is obviously the most common, while in many

activities unimanual hand usage is more prevalent than the

simultane
that eye
not Chang
become th
hand, in\
not the I
performed
required.
'I
activity
as the do.
HHS may 1
Coordinat‘

Clark (19!

AlthOT
latere
View 1
It has
adVant

e 85
e 91V
in Wha
d dISa
CQrtai
Sighti
Whethe
is not

Se‘

toward a t-

C

(b) does h

simultaneous use of both hands. It is generally agreed
that eye dominance is established early in life and does
not change. The non—dominant eye cannot be trained to
become the dominant eye (Clark, 1957). On the other
hand, invariability in handedness is the exception and
not the rule. Hand usage depends on the action being
performed and the skill or precision of the movement
required.

The hand which is chosen for use in a particular
activity may or may not be on the same side of the body
as the dominant eye. Little is known as to what effect
this may have on hitting or missing the target in hand-eye
coordination activities requiring accuracy of direction.
Clark (1957) has summarized the situation well:

Although it has been established that crossed
laterality is common, this does not exclude the
view that unilateral dominance is the ideal.

It has frequently been asserted that it is an
advantage to have the preferred hand and eye on
the same side . . . At present no decision can
be given on this issue since it is not known

in what activities crossed laterality may be

a disadvantage. Its effect may be limited to
certain situations, for example, monocular
sighting in such activities as rifle shooting.
Whether it is important in binocular situations
is not established. (p. 75)

Several questions that need answers have been
suggested. In tasks requiring accuracy of direction
toward a target: (a) are left handed individuals more
accurate than right handed individuals, or vice versa;

(b) does hand dominance or eye dominance have the greatest

influence on the direction in which errors are made; or

(c) is it

most inf I

establis?
accuracy
Physical
mation t

result 1‘

the Eff
dominan
made wh

Was deg

(c) is it the combination of hand-eye dominance which is
most influencial on the direction of misses?

If a direct and measurable connection can be
established between hand-eye dominance patterns and
accuracy of direction when throwing at a target, the
physical education teacher or coach may use this infor-
mation to help students select focal points which will

result in more successful performances.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of the investigation was to study
the effects of hand dominance, eye dominance, and hand-eye
dominance combinations on accuracy and direction of errors
made when throwing at a target. Specifically, the study
was designed to:

1. Explore the influence of hand dominance on
three dependent variables: (a) overall
accuracy of throwing at a target; (b) dir-
ectional errors in the right and left halves
of the target; and (c) directional errors in
the upper and lower halves of the target.

2. Explore the influence of eye dominance on the
same three dependent variables.

3. Explore the influence of the four hand-eye
dominance combinations (RH-RE, RH-LE, LH-RE,
LH-LE) on each of the three dependent

variables.

Th
hYpOtIiese s

StUdy ;

4. Explore the influence of ipsilateral and
contralateral dominance of hand and eye on

each of the three dependent variables.

W

The review of literature suggested the following
hypotheses would be supported by the findings of the
study:

1. Hand dominance (R or L) has a significant
influence on accuracy and/or directional
errors in the performance of a target
throwing task.

2. Eye dominance (R or L) significantly affects
accuracy and/or the direction of errors
made in the performance of a target throw-
ing task.

3. Combinations of hand-eye dominance (RH-RE,
RH-LE, LH-RE, LH—LE) significantly influ—
ence accuracy and/or directional errors in
the performance of a target throwing task.

4. Ipsilateral (RH—RE and LH-LE) and contra-
lateral (RH-LE and LH-RE) dominance of
hand and eye significantly affects accuracy
and/or the direction of errors made in the
performance of a target throwing task.

Scope of the Study

 

Sophomore high school girls, enrolled in a required
physical education program, were potential subjects for
the study. The potential subject population was stratified
with respect to eye dominance and preferred hand for dart
throwing. Experimental subjects were randomly selected

using disproportionate sampling from each of the four

strata 01
data on

subject

trials 0
trials 0
last 25

Measuren
days. 1:
categorj
(lateral

Statistj

strata obtained. Dart throwing was used to obtain the
data on the three dependent variables. Each experimental
subject attended two measurement sessions in which 30
trials of dart throwing were administered. The first five
trials of each session were allowed for practice with the
last 25 trials being scored for the dependent variables.
Measurement sessions were separated by a period of seven
days. Results of the 50 scored trials were compared to
categories and combinations of the independent variables
(lateral dominance of hand and eye) using parametric

statistics.

Limitations of the Study

 

Results of the investigation were limited in

respect to the following:

1. The sample selected was a stratified random
sample of female Sophomore students attending
Eastern High School, Lansing, Michigan, and
included three Juniors and five Seniors who
were selected to fill the left-handed cate-
gories when these strata did not contain
sufficient Sophomore students. The resulting
sample had a mean age of 16.2 years. General-
izations must therefore be limited to the
population from which the subjects were

selected.

Dance pa
0f value
accuracy
Results

on the it

Enter 5k

hand, Or
Vities.

the mem

2. Generalizations regarding accuracy and/or
directional errors and dominance patterns

are limited to the skill of dart throwing.

Significance of the Study

 

Positive conclusions relating hand and eye domi-
nance patterns to measurable accuracy deviations may be
of value to the teacher or coach of activities where
accuracy of direction toward a target is important.
Results of the study may serve to guide future research
on the role of lateral dominance in the performance of

motor skills.

Definitions

 

Lateral Dominance.-—A preference for one eye,

 

hand, or foot over the opposite member in unimanual acti-
vities. In bilateral tasks, dominance is exhibited by

the member which performs the more complex maneuvers.

 

Unilateral or Ipsilateral Dominance.-—The pattern
where hand and eye, or hand, eye, and foot are dominant
on the same side.

Contralateral Dominance.--The pattern where two of

 

the three members are dominant on one side, and the third
is dominant on the opposite side. When only hand and eye
are involved, one is dominant on one side while the other
is dominant on the opposite side. It may also be referred

to as crossed-dominance.

domin
and t.

refer;

exhibi

cient.

miss ti
halves
the tar

and an I

right Or

DEIQw a 1

IH [’71

It"

Mixed Dominance.--The pattern where one member is

 

dominant on one side, one is dominant on the opposite side,
and the third does not exhibit dominance. It may also be
referred to as mixed-lateral.

Ambidextrous or Ambilateral.-—Dominance is not

 

exhibited by either side. Both sides are equally profi—
cient. (True ambidexterity is rarely found.)

Directional Errors.—-The direction of throws that

 

miss the bull's eye. They may be in the right or left
halves of the target, or in the upper or lower halves of
the target. A miss may have both a rightwleft component
and an up-down component. -

R-L Directional Error.--A throw that is to the

 

right or left of a vertical line drawn through target
center.

A-B Directional Error.--A throw that is above or

 

below a horizontal line drawn through target center.
RH:§§.--Right-handed and right-eyed.
RH:L§.--Right-handed and left eyed.
LH:R§.--Left-handed and right-eyed.

LH-LE.--Left-handed and left—eyed.

Tl
effect of
direction
Primary (3;
relations}
The the”:
the incide
measul‘emex

fOundatim

CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to determine the
effect of lateral dominance patterns on accuracy and
direction of errors when throwing at a target. The
primary emphasis of this review was to investigate the
relationship of lateral dominance to motor proficiency.
The theories pertaining to the development of dominance,
the incidence and characteristics of dominance, and the
measurement of dominance were included as a necessary

foundation for the present study.

Theories of Dominance Development

 

Numerous theories have been proposed to explain the
observations of preferred laterality or handedness in the
population. Any theory, to be tenable, must take into
consideration most of the empirical evidence. The early
theories were concerned with accounting for the right-hand
preference of the majority and were inadequate when
applied to left-handedness. Attempts to explain left“

handedness did not occur until the nineteenth century.

10

At
to be a mys
Theories ti

anatomical

Anatomical
\I

11

At present, the development of dominance continues
to be a mystery to physiologists and psychologists alike.
Theories that have been advanced may be classified as:

anatomical, hereditary, or social in nature.

Anatomical

Theories of structural differences date back to
Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle contended that the organs
were more powerful on the right side of the body and this
caused a right-sidedness. Left-sidedness could not be
accommodated by his theory.

Many of the early anatomical theories postulated
asymmetries within the fetus as the cause of dominance.
Some of the ideas were: (a) the unequal development of
the two sides of the brain before birth, with a greater
mass on the left side (Jackson, 1905); (b) the position
of the fetus in intrauterine life where its left arm lies
posteriorly, thus giving the right arm greater facility
of movement (Hildreth, 1949, II); (c) the arrangement of
the blood supply from the heart favoring the right arm by
providing better nutrition to the left cerebral hemisphere
(Blau, 1946, citing H. E. Jordan, 1911); and (d) the dis-
placement of the center of gravity to the right of the
medial plane due to the greater weight of the liver and
lungs on that side, which in time developed stronger
muscles on the right side (Jackson, 1905, citing Professor

Alexander Buchanan of the University of Glasgow). These

theox
postt
tribr

posit

from

right
binoc
Of vi:
in the

that j

tWO he
domina
flame]
be con:

1949, J

12

theories have since been disproved because: (a) any
postural asymmetry in infancy tends to be equally dis—
tributed in the population; and (b) persons with trans-
position of heart position are not reversed in handedness.

Parson (1924) advocated that handedness originates
from eyedness, and that the right hand was guided by the
right eye. His theory is refuted by the fact that in
binocular vision it is not possible to detect the field
of vision of one eye from the other. Also, handedness
in the blind population does not differ appreciably from
that in the normal population.

An asymmetrical neurological functioning of the
two hemispheres has been claimed to be the basis of
dominance development. However, complete cortical domiv
anance has not been proven and the left hemisphere cannot
be considered dominant for all nervous functions (Hildreth,
1949, III; Dimond, 1970).

All attempts to identify a structural basis which
can explain lateral dominance have been unsuccessful. If
handedness arises from some structural difference, then
genetic factors should transmit it from generation to

generation. This has not occurred.

Hereditary

 

The need to explain the consistent minority of
left-handed individuals within a pepulation brought the

geneticists into the field at the beginning of this

centur

to some
left-ha
that ha
from a

have sh
known 1.
the inh:
Offered

TraVis l

ideIltica
by Rife

involvem
a‘TLbidext
and 0the;
are gene‘
not read;
a right—I
viduals I:
that the

to Some d

SI
heredity i

13

century. Their investigations were hampered by the fact
that no society permitted the normal development of the
left hand.

There is little reason to doubt that handedness is
to some extent hereditary (Wile, 1934). Wile regarded
left-handedness as a Mendelian recessive, and suggested
that handedness is probably not a single gene but arises
from a combination of factors. Subsequent observations
have shown, however, that left-handedness does not follow
known laws of heredity. Empirical evidence to support
the inheritance theory of dominance development has been
offered by Ojemann (1930), Brain (1945), and Tuttle and
Travis (1935).

Observations of the incidence of handedness in
identical twins and studies of palm patterns were used
by Rife (1951) to propose a hypothesis of hereditary
involvement. According to his scheme, genetically
ambidextrous persons (Rr) are easily shifted by training
and other environmental influences, whereas persons who
are genetically right-handed (RR) or left-handed (rr) are
not readily susceptible to training. As our society is
a right-handed society, the naturally ambidextrous indi—
viduals become functionally rightnhanded. Rife concluded
that the influence of environment on handedness depended
to some degree on one's heredity.

Several authors have expressed opposition to

heredity as a theory of dominance development (Jackson,

1905
to b
DOWHI
socie
(194E
train
were

futile

May

ment i
man's‘
The the
Signifi

develop

Prefere
50“. 19
to traix
acquirec
IhbitUal
that lef
of the i;
eduCatiOI
EXplanatj

H.957) .

14

1905; Downey, 1933; Blau, 1946). They consider the theory
to be contrary to experience and unsupported by facts.
Downey and Blau believed dominance to be a product of
social cultivation and learning influences. Hildreth
(1949, III), who believed that handedness should be
trained and not left to chance, stated that if handedness
were hereditary then attempts to change it would be

futile.
Social

The social conditioning view of dominance.developu
ment is currently the most widely accepted. It emphasizes
man's adaptability and conformity to group pressure.

The theory suggests the social demands of today are more
significant than natural physical inclinations in the
development of hand dominance.

Most individuals, at birth, do not have a hand
preference and are therefore amenable to education (Jack-
son, 1905; Hildreth, 1949, I). Both hands are responsive
to training. Blau (1946) advocated that laterality was
acquired through training and education, and became a
habitual response by social conditioning. He believed
that left-handedness reflected a sociological deviation
of the individual due to an inherent deficiency, faulty
education, or emotional negativism. A psychological
explanation of left-handedness was also offered by Clark

(1957). She stated that left~handedness is a revolt of

of the

since

develc
stated
acquis
learn:
ing f1
0f rig
years,

curve

factor
indica.
(1949,

little

deXteri
until t
Burke (
enhance
grade c?

anOUtCOI
085611 ar

ltexists

15

of the individual which becomes a distinct disadvantage
since society is based on right-handedness.

The best argument for a social theory of dominance
development was presented by Hildreth (1949, III). She
stated that handedness is learned. In other words, the
acquisition of handedness follows the same laws of
learning and habit formation as does all behavior result-
ing from practice or performance. When the proportion
of right-handed individuals was plotted versus age in
years, a very typical negatively accelerated learning
curve resulted.

That early training and activity are important
factors in the determination of dominance has been
indicated by Palmer (1964) and Provins (1956). Hildreth
(1949, II) stated that up to age three the child has
little need in daily activities for Specialized hand
dexterity, and that consistent sidedness does not occur
until the child learns motor coordination. However,
Burke (1969) found motor training did not significantly
enhance the development of lateral preference in first
grade children, but it did assist in the development of
lateral awareness.

The development of handedness was reported to be
an outcome of ontogenetic patterning and organization by
Gesell and Ames (1947). They believed ambidexterity, if

it exists at all, would seem to be an abnormality.

handed;
rather
Barsley
has nor.

phenome

many wa:
apparem
Various

emPhasis
con tras t

inflUEnc

the dist;
handecines
hand dOmi
dominance
left and :
third are
1349' III

as right,

 

30perCen

16

In summary, the bulk of evidence indicates that
handedness is a product of both heredity and environment,
rather than being due entirely to one or the other.
Barsley (1966) concluded that the question of handedness
has now become one of treatment for a familiar, accepted

phenomenon.

Characteristics of Dominance

 

The qualities peculiar to hand dominance differ in
many ways from the characteristics of eye dominance. This
apparent difference may have been confounded by the
various methods used to evaluate handedness and by the
emphasis placed on right-handedness in all societies. In
contrast, the establishment of eye dominance has not been

influenced by social conditioning.

Eye Dominance

 

Although not equally distributed in the population,
the distribution of eye dominance is not as extreme as
handedness. Left-eye dominance is more common than leftv
hand dominance (Miles, 1929; Hildreth, 1949, III). Eye
dominance in left—handed people is equally divided between
left and right eyes, while in right-handed people one-
third are left-eyed and two-thirds are right—eyed (Hildreth,
1949, III). Crider (1944), who classified eye dominance
as right, left, or impartial—eyed, also found approximately

30 percent of right-handed individuals were left—eyed.

I

been idei

 

 

17

Other characteristics of ocular dominance have
been identified by Hildreth (1949, III) as:

1. At birth, infants are ambi-eyed and remain

so until control of hand function is needed.

2. Eye movements develop in infancy ahead of
hand movements. Throughout life, the eyes
control and direct the hands.

3. The eye dominance established early in
infancy persists unless the dominant eye
becomes incapacitated.

4. The choice of the sighting eye is purely
involuntary because there is no social
convention to influence the pattern of
develOpment.

5. Establishment of ocular dominance does not
appear to be as essential for performance
of skilled tasks as is manual dominance.

6. There is a connection between dominant
eyedness and early handedness habits.

A definite relationship has been found between eye
dominance and head tilt (Greenburg, 1960). Right—eyed
subjects tend to carry their heads to the left and left“
eyed subjects tend to carry their heads to the right.
The ambi-eyed do not manifest a consistent head tilt.
Greenburg suggested a functional interpretation of this

phenomenon; namely, that the dominant eye is unconsciously

carried

accurat

is firm
Hildret
appear
become
better

acuity

the sex
but the
tion of
as freq:
eVidencg

1957),

eyed-HESS
Cliff, 19:

the p0pu1‘

 

18

carried closer to the midline of the body for a more
accurate alignment of the entire individual.

There is ample evidence to show that eye dominance
is firmly established prior to school age (Clark, 1957;
Hildreth, 1949, III). Once established, it does not
appear to be possible to train the non-dominant eye to
become dominant. Even though the preferred eye may have
better visual acuity than the non-preferred eye, visual
acuity is not the basis of eye dominance (Clark, 1957).

No significant difference has been found between
the sexes in distribution of eye dominance (Crider, 1944),
but there is an apparent sex difference in the distribu-
tion of handedness. Males exhibit left—handedness twice
as frequently as males (Hildreth, 1949, II). Present
evidence indicates this difference is probably due to
environmental rather than hereditary factors (Clark,
1957).

It is generally agreed that the correlation between
eyedness and handedness is low (Gesell and Ames, 1947;
Cuff, 1931; Hildreth, 1949, III). That is, eye and hand
dominance are not related in a substantial proportion of

the population.

Hand Dominance

 

It has been suggested that hand dominance beComeS
manifest as early as the sixth month.of infancy and is'

fairly well established at the age of one year (Wile, 1934).

Hand pre:
urges anI
later so
relative
children

thereaft

at an ea
directly
thus be

not aris
tonic-me
of hands
(1947).

to 3 str

 

19

Hand preference then becomes fixed, partly from inherited
urges and partly as a result of parental direction and
later social education. Gesell and Ames (1947) found a
relatively clear—cut right dominance in the majority of
children at two years of age, but that certain periods
thereafter were characterized by bilaterality.

There have been attempts to predict handedness
at an early age. In 1924, Parson thought handedness was
directly caused by a fixed type of eyedness and could
thus be predicted. It is now agreed that handedness does
not arise as an effect of eyedness (Cuff, 1931). The
tonic-neck reflex in infants was found to be predictive
of handedness in 14 out of 19 cases by Gesell and Ames
(1947). They reported that left-handedness was related
to a strong infantile left—tonic—neck reflex.

There appears to be a close relationship between
the age at which dominance appears and the degree of
dominance (Clark, 1957). Right-handedness is apparent
at an earlier age than left-handedness and left-handed
individuals are not as strongly left dominant as right-
handed individuals are right dominant (Hildreth, 1949, II).

Most people show inconsistencies in hand .usage
and every physically normal person is left-handed to some
degree. The choice of hand used depends on the specific
situation. New skills can be learned as easily with the
left or the right hand (Hildreth, 1949, III). Hildreth.

was a strong proponent for the training of handedness,

fron
left
(Hil«
emot:
the c
and h

infer:

ness,

there .
Psycho;
Points

reversi.
Problenu
Childrer
and a fe

1968) ,

13%

hand 0r e
reported
instituti.
epilepti
greatEr

I510” .

20

and stated that young children can be easily trained away
from left-hand usage. The occasional advantages of being
left-handed are far out-weighed by the disadvantages
(Hildreth, 1950, V). Left-hand persistence is due to an
emotional resistance, according to Hildreth, and unless
the child who persists in left-hand usage is encouraged
and helped to become proficient, he may always be
inferior.

Experts differ on the question of whether handed-
ness, once established, should be changed. Some believe
there are no deleterious effects if it is done in a
psychologically sound manner (Blau, 1946). Blau's study
points out that training to a degree sufficient for
reversing most children may be conducted without emotional
problems. In the past, efforts to switch handedness of
children resulted in many problems (real and imaginary)
and a fear of changing handedness developed (Oxendine,

1968).

Implications

 

Several attempts to link abnormalities to specific
hand or eye dominances have been made. Barsley (1966)
reported that 16-30 percent of the inmates in mental
institutions were left-handed, and that 15 percent of
epileptics were left-handed. This is a significantly
greater proportion than found in the normal population

(5-10%). A good point has been made by Hildreth.(1949, III)

21

to explain this phenomenon. She stated that the increased
number of defectives who are left-handed is due to their
being less trainable and unable to benefit from instruc-
tion than are other individuals. This would agree with
her theory that handedness is trainable and follows a
normal learning curve. In another instance, Trembly
(1968) found polio victims who had contralateral dominance
of hand and eye were more frequently paralyzed than
unilateral-dominant individuals. He suggested increased
nervous tension in these individuals made the neural
system more susceptible to the polio virus.

Stuttering and left-handedness are correlated.
Stuttering is most noticeable in children who lack con-
sistent handedness or who are delayed in establishing
dominance (Hildreth, 1950, IV). The stuttering subsides
when a higher degree of consistency in handedness is
established.

Various opinions regarding the role of lateral
dominance in motor performance have been recorded. In
the domain of sports, games, and recreation, Jackson
(1905) advocated ambidexterity to be an advantage. He
lamented the one-handed man as deficient and inferior.
Parson (1924) and Clark (1957) both proposed that coordi-
nation is hampered unless the dominant hand and eye are
on the same side of the body. Hildreth (1949, I) stated
that individuals who have not achieved manual dominance

are less effective or may even be handicapped in motor

perforni
leads t4

perform

evenly

primari
a minor
althOUg
handedn.
the mos-

foot and

tion is
ing On 1
and the
reported
(gradeS

fOund 83
handed,

handed.

tiohs in
consider
in the [I

”931) re

I

22

performance, and that delay in establishing dominance
leads to uncertainty, confusion, and awkwardness in

performing motor skills.

Incidence of Dominance in the Population

It is general knowledge that laterality is not
evenly distributed in the population. Individuals who
primarily use the left hand in unimanual activities are
a minority. Left-eyed individuals are also a minority,
although the percentage is not as extreme as that of
handedness. On the other hand, footedness appears to be
the most evenly distributed due to a high percentage of
foot ambidexterity (Irwin, 1938).

The incidence of right-handedness in the popula-
tion is estimated to be between 70 and 98 percent, depend-
ing on the population investigated, the author reporting,
and the tests of handedness employed. Cuff (1931)
reported that 93 percent of college students and children
(grades one to eight) were right-handed. Uhrbrock (1970)
found 83 percent of male college students to be right-
handed, while 76 percent of champion athletes were right-
handed. No difference was found between the two pOpula-
tions in left-handedness (13%» but the athletes were
considerably more ambilateral.

The prevalence of left—handedness has increased
in the United States during the past three decades. Cuff

(1931) reported the existing condition to be from 2-6

perce
6.4 1
left-
twice
anoti
1947,
to be
hands
Gross
servi
(1949
cent ;
tion a
believ
histor
WOuld ]

Pressul

 

23

percent left-handed. A Detroit study in 1941, showed
6.4 percent of 13,438 elementary school children were
left-handed with the proportion of boys being nearly
twice as large as that of girls (Barsley, 1966). In
another Michigan study of 225,000 students conducted in
1947, 10.1 percent of students in first gradewere.found
to be left-handed, while only 6.6 percent were left-
handed in twelth grade (Barsley, 1966). Karpinos and
Grossman (1953) disclosed that 8.67 percent of selective
service registrants (males) were left-handed. Hildreth
(1949, II) reported left-handedness to vary from 7 per-
cent in children to 4 or 5 percent in the adult p0pula-
tion and to be the lowest among college students. She
believed it may have been as high as 33 percent in pre—
historic man. Cuff (1931) indicated native left-handedness
would be between 20—30 percent today if it were not for
pressures of society affecting the ratio. Clark (1957)
disagreed with Cuff. She stated that an enforced change
of handedness by a society cannot account for the propor-
tionate difference in right-left dominance, because the
incidence of left-handedness among the congenitally blind
is as high as it is in the normal p0pu1ation. Clark also
reported left—handedness to be more common among twins,
with 18-20 percent of pairs of twins having one left—
handed member.

The incidence of eyedness is more clear-cut than

that reported for handedness. Left-eyedness appears to

occur i
(Cride:
62 per
centag
(1970)

while

mixed
intere.
Percen'
(Way,
1957; j
mately
and eye
made th
Contral
III; Tyfl
Adams,

Varies 1

and Tyle

 

24

occur in approximately 30 percent of the population
(Crider, 1944; Cuff, 1931), while the same authors report
62 percent and 70 percent of right—eyedness. Lower per-
centages of right-eyedness were published by Uhrbrock
(1970) who found 56 percent of athletes to be right-eyed,
while 47 percent of college males were right—eyed.

The occurrence of unilateral, contralateral, and
mixed dominance of hand and eye in the population was of
interest to the present study. After reviewing the
percentages of unilaterality reported in the literature
(Way, 1958; Adams, 1965; Clark, 1957; Sinclair and Smith,
1957; Tyler, 1971; Horine, 1968), it appears that approxi-
mately 57 percent of the population have unilateral hand
and eye dominance. Similarly, a generalization may be
made that about one-third (33%) of all individuals are
contralateral in hand and eye dominance (Hildreth, 1949,
III; Tyler, 1971; Sinclair and Smith, 1957; Cuff, 1931;
Adams, 1965; Clark, 1957; Way, 1958). Mixed dominance
varies from 10-13 percent as reported by Horine (1968)

and Tyler (1971).

Measurement of Dominance

 

The literature reveals that dominance has been
determined by various methods depending on the individual
researcher. There is no established, standardized
procedure that is universally adopted and accepted.

Available tests appear to have originated in the first

half 0:
group
Zener
are me.
ones.

more d.

Tests <

centere
eyes.
Crider

t0 eyQ

to be u
dominanc
Open. fi
9Y9- (the
of this

both QYe:
include 5

or align:

 

to Duran
in the CI.

was bold

25

half of the twentieth century. Recent tests, such as the
group test for eye dominance deve10ped by Friedheim and
Zener at Duke University and reported by Greenburg (1960),
are merely a modification or reapplication of the older
ones. Handedness, with its variability between tasks, is

more difficult to access than eyedness.

Tests of Eyedness

The early studies in the measurement of dominance
centered around the comparative visual acuity of the two
eyes. It has since been determined by Downey (1933),
Crider (1944), and others that visual acuity is unrelated
to eye dominance.

Sighting preference during binocular vision appears
to be the most satisfactory method of determining eye
dominance. When an object is sighted with both eyes
open, fixation is actually due to the functioning of one
eye (the dominant eye), although subjects are not conscious
of this fact and have the impression that they are using
both eyes. Binocular vision tests that have been used
include sighting through a cone, a hole in a card, a ring,
or aligning a pencil with some object.

The origin of the Hole-in-Card Test is traced back
to Durand and Gould (1910). They used a card with a hole
in the center, a piece of tubing pushed through the hole,
and an attached handle. The disadvantage of this method

was holding the handle with only one hand. This fault

u a
I ‘ M‘
‘m, a : rare eucamm
‘ . _

not appe

was corrI
centimet
center,

each han
length w

meters d

dominanc
test is

the A-B-
Utilized
Sighted.
differen
the subj.
the Card
larger a]
Card Wit]
of the m
the Cone
readily c
trials We

between 1

0.95 fOr

 

   

0.97 f0]:

26

was corrected by Dolman (1919). He used a 13 by 20
centimeter card with a 3 centimeter round hole in the
center, and had the subject grasp one end of the card with
each hand. The subject raised the card slowly at arm's
length while looking intently at a spot of light six
meters distant.

The necessity for unconscious sighting during eye
dominance tests was first stressed by Miles (1929). His
test is called the A-B—C Test of Ocular Dominance with
the A-B-C meaning Area—Blackness-Comparison. The method
utilized a tapered cone through which test cards were
sighted. Each test card contained two round spots, each
different in size and shade of color. The attention of
the subject was controlled by giving a short exposure of
the card and having the subject indicate which spot was
larger and which was darker. The subject viewed the
card with both eyes Open, looked through the large end
of the cone toward the small end and unconsciously lined
the cone up with the dominant eye. The dominant eye was
readily observable by the examiner. A series of ten such
trials were suggested. There was extremely high consistency
between trials using this method, with a reliability of
0.95 for the test. Cuff (1931) used a similar eye
dominance test and reported a reliability coefficient of
0.97 for measurement consistency;

The use of a battery of eye dominance tests does

not appear to have an advantage over a simple test that

is repe
eyednes
They re
(a smal
hole-in
sightir
which i
vidual
highest
concluc
When re
a batte
finding
reporte
sex, he

influen

failed

0r grea

27

is repeated a sufficient number of times. Four tests of
eyedness were studied by Buxton and Crosland in 1937.
They reported reliability coefficients for the manuscope
(a small darkened box develOped by Parson, 1924); for the
hole—in-card; for ring sighting; and for a monocular
sighting test. The tests were pooled into a battery
which had an overall reliability of 0.85. Of the indi-
vidual tests, the hole-in-card was found to have the
highest reliability (r=0.97) using ten trials. The authors
concluded that typical simple tests of eye preference,
when repeated, prove to be statistically reliable. Using
a battery of seven tests, Crider (1944) supported the
findings of Buxton and Crosland. His battery had a
reported reliability of 0.98. Crider also reported that
sex, handedness, intelligence, or visual acuity did not
influence test results.

Further investigation into tests of eyedness
failed to discover other methods with higher reliability
or greater ease of administration. The Phi Test of domi-
nance described by Jasper and Raney (1937) was very
elaborate and its correlation with other tests was low.
Retinal-rivalry tests also have low correlation with other
tests of eye dominance (Washburn, Faison, and Scott, 1934).
The group test reported by Crovitz and Zener (1965)
involving the pencil alignment procedure, is suggested

only as a screening device to use with large groups.

Tests .

effort
fied b
motor

miners

true p

used e
Of imp
employ.
indica
of the
1946),
are the
CUtting
ing a (
Writing
holding
Dominar
or Peri
reSPOn.

hand r

 

 

FOX Il-
Streng
tive

Oblec

28

Tests of Handedness

 

Numerous techniques have been employed in an
effort to assess handedness. Most of these can be classi-
fied by their utilization of preference, strength, speed,
motor tests, or simultaneous bimanual drawing as deter-
miners of the dominant hand. None of the tests give a
true picture of handedness with its extreme variability.

Preference tests to determine handedness have
used either the questionnaire method or the performance
of important unimanual activities. Although widely
employed, questionnaires have not proven to be reliable
indicators of the hand actually used in the performance
of the activity (Barnsley and Rabinovitch, 1970; Blau,
1946). Questionnaire items that have proven reliable
are those easily tested by performance, namely, hammering,
cutting with scissors, card dealing, spinning a top, wind-
ing a watch, holding a toothbrush, sharpening a pencil,
writing, cutting when eating, drawing, throwing, and
holding a tennis racquet (Hull, 1936). An Index-of-
Dominance is usually employed in either the questionnaire
or performance methods using the formula of %$%-to score
responses (Hildreth, 1949, I). (R is the number of right-
hand responses, and L is the number of left-hand responses.)
Fox (1957) used a battery of 29 items and concluded that
strength and dexterity tests were probably more indica-

tive of hand dominance than a test of reaching for some

object. Cuff (1931) found the throwing test indicates

the d
tests
targe

speed

hands
seems
abili
does L
(1961

domini

Prece<
a Squ
main (
tice g
transi
Reactj
does I

 

29

the dominant hand in nine out of ten cases, and reaching
tests in eight out of ten cases. The accuracy test of
target throwing was found to be superior to strength and
speed for diagnosis of hand dominance by Burge (1952).

Relative strength tests of the right and left
hands may be a doubtful measure of dominance, as there
seems to be little connection between power and handedness
ability in intricate movements. However, one hand usually
does have greater strength than the other hand and Henry
(1961) found strength to be 54 percent specific to the
dominant hand.

Speed tests have involved speed of tapping and
precedence of movement of the two forearms in response to
a sequence of three light stimuli (Vogel, 1935). The
main criticism of these tests is that the effect of prac-
tice gained by one hand in other activities probably
transfers to the skills employed in the speed tests.
Reaction time and movement time between the two limbs
does not differentiate preferred from non-preferred hands
(Barnsley and Rabinovitch, 1970).

Motor tests give a relative comparison of perform-
ance with the right and left hands. Barnsley and Rabino-
vitch (1970) state that although the same skills are to
be found in either hand, the preferred hand is characterized
by superior performance. Dimond (1971) suggests that the
cerebral hemispheres are not isolated units, but work

through each other to control the function of the limbs,

and t1
respec
that 6
does I

hemis;

Riper
instr1

field

be Con
Cuff,
shOul
or ta
for a
favor

30

and that control may be switched as the tasks demand the
respective specialization of each hemisphere. The fact
that each limb is directly connected with one hemisphere
does not ensure that its function is controlled by that
hemisphere alone.

The simultaneous bimanual drawing tests of Van
Riper (1934) have been used in many clinics as a diagnostic
instrument. It is considered to be too elaborate for
field testing.

Most authorities agree that handedness is far too
complex to be described as simply right or left. It can
best be viewed as a continuum from left to right with
most individuals located somewhere between the two extremes.
Clark (1957) has said:

It is impossible to measure native left-handedness
since society's attitude distorts it at an early
age, and the actual amount uncovered depends on
the tests employed. Even the use of a battery of
tests does not necessarily produce a completely
reliable measure of handedness . . . as the
pressure towards right-handedness varies markedly
from community to community, district to district,
and even family to family, even within any one
generation, one cannot estimate strength of_
preference from the number of activities for which
the left hand is used . . . (p. 12-13).

Current thinking indicates hand preference should
be considered task Specific (Collins, 1961; Lotter, 1960;
Cuff, 1931; Norrie, 1967). Therefore, the preferred hand
should be determined from actual performance of the task
or tasks of concern. When determining the preferred hand
for a task, it is important to take the precaution of not

favoring either hand through the arrangement of objects

for the test.

the r
perfo
realm
the w.
Irwin
of do:
ment <
Tests
and re
in the
and We
into t

I‘EIati

has be

 

31

Dominance and Motor Proficiency

 

Numerous investigators have attempted to discover
the relationship of different dominance patterns to the
performance of motor skills. The early studies in the
realm of physical education appeared in the 1930's with
the work of VOgel (1935), Tuttle and Travis (1935), and
Irwin (1938). They were characterized by the measurement
of dominance using tests involving a Simple flexion move-
ment of the forearm from a key in response to a stimulus.
Tests of dominance using other large muscle activities
and related to gross motor skills are found in the 1950's
in the studies of Fox (1957), Sinclair and Smith (1957),
and Way (1958). Beginning in the 1960's and continuing
into the 1970's, research pertaining to dominance and its
relationship to physical education and athletic activities
has become more abundant.

The literature is replete with studies that Show
various conflicting conclusions about the degree of
association between laterality and motor performance. A
clear-cut relationship between dominance and Skill has
yet to be established. The studies reporting that
laterality is not a factor in motor skill acquisition or
performance will be reviewed first, followed by those
claiming superiority of particular lateralities.

When comparing groups that displayed unilateral
dominance, contralateral dominance, and a lack of dominance

in one or more of the three body parts, Tyler (1971) found

ResulI
hot a:

or 1e:

the d<
Some 6
whethe
Skill
it mac
learni
Was tC

study.

 

32

no significant differences between groups in the rate of
learning two fine motor and one gross motor skill. He
concluded that individuals with different dominance
patterns are equally capable of learning new motor skills,
or "that lateral dominance . . . is not a limiting factor
in motor Skill performance and skill acquisition." This
view differs from that expressed by Clark (1957) and
Hildreth (1949, I) who regarded unilateral dominance as
advantageous. Tyler suggested that if dominance is a
factor in acquiring motor skill, it is an empirical
phenomenon which is modifiable through practice, and not
a neurologically predetermined phenomenon subject to
little change. Putman (1971) studied the learning ability
of right-handed college women on the pursuit rotor. They
were given 5, 10, or 20 trials of 20 seconds duration.
Results indicated the degree of first hand practice did
not affect the total amount learned with either the right
or left hand.

The efficiency of teaching methods in relation to
the dominant and non-dominant musculature has received
some attention in the literature. Lambert (1951) studied
whether it would be more effective to teach a two-handed
skill to the non-dominant musculature first. He concluded
it made no difference which hand was trained first in
learning a two-handed skill, and the most effective method
was to train both musculatures together. In a similar

study, the basketball skills of dribbling, shooting, and

passing
One grc
other g
weeks c
minute

differq

foot w
tion w
differ
nance,
HoweVe
betwee

33

passing were taught to fifth grade children (Thomas, 1969).
One group was taught to use the dominant hand only and the
other group taught to use both hands equally during 12
weeks of daily instruction. With the exception of a half-
minute shooting test using the left hand, no significant
differences were found between the two groups of children.

The relationship between dominant eye, hand, and
foot with the take-off foot in selected skills of locomo-
tion was investigated by Garrison (1969). No Significant
differences were found between eye, hand, and foot domi—
nance, singularly or in combination, and the take-off foot.
However, the findings revealed that relationships do exist
between eye and hand laterality, hand and foot laterality,
and eye and foot laterality.

The performance of ten year old boys on tests
involving dynamic balance, motor educability, speed of
arm movements, and shuttle run were compared to their
exhibited lateral dominances (Horine, 1968). There.were
no differences in level of performance between the various
laterality groups.

Handedness does not appear to be a factor in the
timing of limb movement patterns. Norrie (1967) studied
the effects of unequal distances and handedness on timing
patterns of the limbs. She reported that the limb which
was required to travel the greater distance started first
and finished last. The distances involved seemed more

important than handedness in determining the pattern of

mover

when

may
have
usin
had

sinc
domi
tend
fica

throw

 

34

movement used. One hand was not favored over the other
when the movement distance was equal.

An intriguing aspect of laterality is the role it
may have on accuracy in motor performances. Several authors
have reported negative results. Cratty and Williams (1968),
using line drawing without vision, found hand dominance
had no effect upon accuracy of performance. However,
since the sample contained a much larger number of right-
dominant individuals (46) than left (11), this may have
tended to mask the true role of hand dominance. No signi—
ficant difference was found in success of basketball free
throw shooting between unilateral and contralateral groups
in a study by Shick (1971). Staples (1971) compared
unilaterally-dominant male basketball players on Shooting
accuracy under three visual conditions, each in combina-
tion with four shooting positions. Results indicated
shooting accuracy was best under the conditions of bino-
cular vision and better under monocular vision with the
dominant eye than.with.the non-dominant eye. Shooting
accuracy decreased as the distance from the baSket
increased and was more accurate when the shots were
attempted directly in front of the basket than from equi~
distant positions at the side.

Several investigators have reported no relationship
between lateral dominance and motor ability in specific
sports. Baseball hitting and dominance were studied by

Adams (1965) and Baughman (1968). Adams found the

central
unilatI
the pi'
latera
hit, a
favor

domina
did no
groups
and Sn
and fc
and SW
that s
crawl

Vice \
Pertir
eye‘he
learnj
Su99es
in re.
b0Wle

bOwl

 

hands
in p
more
estat

impo.

35

contralateral batters did not perform better than the
unilateral batters, even though their dominant eyes faced
the pitcher. Baughman found no difference between uni-
lateral and contralateral batters in ability to place
hit, although a significant difference was reported in
favor of using both eyes as compared to using only the
dominant or non-dominant eye. Lacrosse throwing ability
did not differ between the unilateral and contralateral
groups studied by Cooke (1969). In swimming, Sinclair
and Smith (1957) determined that dominance of eye, hand,
and foot was not related to side preference for breathing
and swimming the sidestroke. They did discover, however,
that swimmers who breathe to the right side in the front
crawl tend to swim the sidestroke on the left side and
vice versa. Fox (1957) and Frahm (1967) investigated the
pertinence of dominance to bowling. Frahm concluded that
eye-hand dominance did not appear to be a factor in
learning the hook delivery by the spotting method. Fox
suggested that many individuals using the right hand were
in reality native left-handers. Twenty such beginning
bowlers were identified and four subjects were taught to
bowl left-handed while the other sixteen bowled right-
handed. The left-handed bowlers were significantly poorer
in performance. The conclusion was that bowling involves
more than the use of the arms, and it is possible the long

established coordinations of eye, hand, and foot are more

important than hand dominance in learning a new skill.

Theref:

rather

Unilat

indica
in not
studie
observ
studie
Signif

motor

Vision
intEre
abilit
vision
FOllo
repor
imPOr
that
able 5

WhEn 2

 

bette
PUr5u{

unila

 

36

Therefore, the preferred hand should be used to bowl

rather than the natively dominant hand.

Unilateral Dominance

 

Several investigators have obtained results which
indicate unilaterally-dominant individuals are superior
in motor ability. It is intriguing that all of these
studies, except one, were published since.1965. This
observation may or may not have importance, as several
studies since 1965 have also reported the lack of a
significant relationship between lateral dominance and
motor proficiency.

One of the most common applications of monocular
vision is in rifle shooting. Banister (1935) became
interested in eye dominance as a factor in shooting
ability when he discovered that infantrymen with the best
vision did not always score highest on shooting tests.
Following the collection of data on 1,000 infantrymen, he
reported, "the results show that the dominant eye is an
important factor affecting ability with the rifle, and
that the man whose right eye is dominant has a consider—
able advantage, other things being equal, over other men
when required to shoot from the right shoulder."

Unilateral groups have performed consistently
better than corresponding contralateral groups on the
pursuit rotor. Poindexter (1965) tested male and female

unilateral and contralateral groups on 30 trials of the

pursu
indiv
the c
right
subje
group
gener
femal
trial

remai;

indiv,
domin‘
50 un.
high 1
hand~.
HIOVem,
COnt-re
aCCur,

equal:

to Re]
Contra
The mi
also

eYe~fc

RErfo:

 

37

pursuit rotor. The unilateral group was composed of
individuals who were right-eyed and right-handed, and
the contralateral group of those who were left-eyed and
right-handed. No left-handed individuals served as
subjects in the study. Results indicated the unilateral
groups were superior in performance. Males were, in
general, superior to females; however, the unilateral
females exceeded the contralateral males after the tenth
trial and maintained a slight superiority throughout the
remaining trials.

It has been proposed that unilaterallyedominant
individuals have better coordination than contralaterally-
dominant individuals (Robinson, 1965). Robinson compared
50 unilateral junior high boys and 50 contralateral junior
high boys on 25 tests of reaction time, 15 large muscle
hand-eye movement tests, and 8 small muscle hand-eye
movement tests. The unilateral group out-performed the
contralateral group on all tests except those requiring
accuracy in large muscle movements. The groups performed
equally well in large muscle accuracy tests.

Unilaterally-dominant individuals have been found
to perform highest on the Scott Motor Ability test, while
contralateral individuals performed lowest (Kisler, 1971).
The mixed group (dominance not clearly decided in a member)
also out-performed the contralateral group. Results showed
eye-foot laterality combinations have some influence on

performance of the basketball throw for distance.

Contrai

latera
The re
colleg
of the
were:

ambide
right-
subjec
showed
Banghn
season
higher

9rOUp.

 

 

38

Contralateral Dominance

 

Two studies obtained results indicating contra-
lateral individuals out-performed other dominance types.
The role of eye and hand dominance on motor ability of
college males was investigated by Roth (1942). Results
of the various laterality groups in order of performance
were: (a) RE,LH; (b) RE,RH; (c) LE,RH; (d) ambiocular,
ambidextrous; (e) ambiocular, RH; and (f) LE,LH. The
right-eyed, left-handed men out-performed all groups, and
subjects who were ambilateral in hand and eye preference
showed no definite extremes of motor ability. In 1968,
Baughman recorded baseball batting averages for an entire
season and found contralaterals achieved a significantly
higher number of bases on balls than did the unilateral

group.
Mixed-Lateral Dominance

Only one study claimed the superiority of mixed-
dominant individuals in motor ability. In 1958, Way
used the Scott Motor Ability tests and Skills of archery,
bowling, badminton, and tennis to study the effect of
lateral dominance on motor ability of college women. There
was no indication that unilateral individuals have higher
skill than contralateral persons. Among Way's conclusions
were: (a) that women with mixed~dominance are superior
in motor ability to those with unilateral or contralateral

preference; and (b) that motor ability seemed to be related

to foo
that i
abilit
conten

of mor

Domina

accura
Judges
had a
Stones
of thi

Perfor

Signif
where

and th

 

39

to foot ambidexterity since combinations of preference
that included foot ambidexterity resulted in higher motor
ability scores. This provides support for Clark's (1957)
contention that the ability to use either foot is possibly

of more value in sports than in other motor activities.
Dominance and Accuracy of Direction

The earliest reference to dominance as a factor in
accuracy was found in the Bible Old Testament book of
Judges, Chapter XX, verses 15-16. The tribe of Benjamin
had a group of left-handed individuals who could sling
stones with unusual accuracy. Since special note was made
of this feat, it was evidently considered to be a superior
performance.

Investigators in several studies identified a
significant relationship between laterality and activities
where accuracy of direction was important. Whiting (1969)
measured the accuracy of throwing at a target by six, nine,
and thirteen year old males and females using their
preferred and non-preferred hands. Results showed that at
six years, the right-handed child appears to have a distinct
advantage in throwing for accuracy, but that those who were
left-handed tended to be more accurate than those who were
right-handed at the ages of nine and thirteen years. One
of Way's conclusions in 1958, was that laterality seemed to
be of greater importance in activities that stress accuracy

of direction toward a fixed target (as in archery and

bowling
directf
free t]
differr
groups
contra
toward

side 0

and no
The vi
studie
Shiple
rePort
whErea
the ri
(1968)
Visior
right

drawn

hand ¢

 

 

4O

bowling) than in activities that do not. In studying the
direction of missed shots by college women in basketball
free throw shooting, Shick (1971) found no significant
difference between the unilateral and contralateral
groups in errors toward the dominant hand. However, the
contralateral group did make significantly more errors
toward the non-dominant hand (toward the dominant eye's
side of the body).

The relationship of lateral dominance to visual
and non-visual directionality has received some attention.
The visual directionality of autokinetic movement was
studied in right and left-handed subjects by Wishner and
Shipley (1954). They found that right—handed persons
reported movement more often to the right than to the left,
whereas left-handed persons reported movement equally to
the right and left. In the study of Cratty and Williams
(1968), which involved the task of line drawing without
vision, the results indicated that lines drawn with the
right hand tended to veer slightly to the left and lines
drawn with the left hand veered to the right. However,
hand dominance was judged not to be a factor in this
"crossing-over" phenomenon.

In summary, the literature on lateral dominance
and motor proficiency reveals that conflicting conclusions
have been reached by different investigators using dif«
ferent skills. A significant portion of the older
evidence would seem to indicate that dominance has an

insignificant role in motor skills. However, many studies

cor
fi<
the
im}
Chi

fUJ

 

 

41

conducted within the past twenty years have found signi-
ficant differences between laterality groups. Whether
these recent significant findings may be due in part to
improved research designs, improved statistical techniques,
changing cultural patterns, or other variables requires

further investigation.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODS

The purpose of the study was to investigate the
effects of individual differences in hand and eye domi—
nance on the performance of a selected motor task. More
specifically, the study attempted to determine if hand
and/or eye dominance influenced: (a) accuracy of throwing
at a target; (b) directional errors made in the right or
left halves of the target; and (c) directional errors

made in the tOp and bottom halves of the target.

Subjects

A population of 230 Sophomore high school girls,
currently enrolled in the required physical education
program at Eastern High School, Lansing, Michigan, was
tested for hand and eye dominance and classified into
strata based on exhibited lateralities. The four possible
strata were RH-RE, RH-LE, LH-RE, and LH-LE.

The results (Table 3.1) showed that the population
of Sophomore girls was approximately 94 percent right—

handed, 6 percent left-handed, 60 percent right-eyed, and

42

43

40 percent leftneyed. Fifty-seven percent were unilateral
in hand-eye dominance and 42 percent were contralateral.
These figures correspond with the incidence reported in
populations by Crider (1944), Cuff (1931), Barsley (1966),

Uhrbrock (1970), and Way (1958).

TABLE 3.1.--Laterality of Sophomore Population.

 

 

Mean age

of selected
Strata No. Percent sample (n=ll)
RH-RE 127 55.2 15.9
RH-LE 89 38.7 16.0
LH-RE 8 3.5 16.3*
LH-LE 6 2.6 16.5**
Totals 230 100.0 16.2

 

*Includes three upper class girls.
**Includes five upper class girls.

Based on the results of a preliminary pilot study
(Appendix A), n=ll was estimated to be a necessary and
sufficient sample size from each strata. Due to the
paucity of left-handed Sophomore girls, both left-handed
groups were filled by selecting left—handed Juniors and
Seniors from elective physical education classes. A dis-
proportionate, random sampling technique was used in order
to produce estimates for the left-handed groups with
greater precision than a proportionate sample would yield,

and to provide equal allocation of stratified subjects. A

44

table of random numbers was employed to select the
experimental subjects. The mean age of the sample

selected was 16.2 years.
Determination of Eye Dominance

Each subject was tested to determine their dominant
eye using the Hole-in—Card method (Appendix B). It is a
simple test to administer, is frequently used, and when
repeated ten times has an established reliability of
r=.97 (Buxton and Crosland, 1937; Crider, 1944). Ten
trials of the test were given with the subject sighting
through the hole in the card (held in both hands) at
different figures or letters displayed on cards held by
the examiner 10 feet (3.0 meters) away. Each_card was
displayed for approximately one second. The examiner
looked past the card and noted which eye the subject
used unconsciously to sight the object. The eye that was
lined up with the hole in the card was recorded for each
trial. The dominant eye was determined as the one used
for the majority of sightings. Of the 238 subjects tested,
233 used the same eye for all 10 trials, three used the
same eye for 9 out of 10 trials, and two used the same eye
for 8 out of the 10 trials. To obtain unconscious sighting
by the subject, as suggested by Miles (1929), subjects
were not told the true purpose of the test. They were told

their quickness and sharpness of vision was being tested.

45

Several points regarding the administration of eye
dominance tests, as cited by Clark (1957), were followed.
Care was taken to eliminate the effects of the dominant
hand by having the subject hold the card with both hands.
When such precautions was taken, the correlation between
eyedness and handedness is low. Similarly, care was
taken to insure that the subject kept both eyes open and
looked directly through the hole in the card. The advan-
tage of using the Hole-in—Card method was that the inves—
tigator could determine the dominant eye and did not have

to rely on the subject's report.
Determination of Hand Dominance

Hand preference for the study was determined by
asking the subject, when commanded, to pick up a dart
(which had been placed at the subject's midline on a table
directly in front of her) and to throw it as quickly as
possible at a dartboard 10 feet (3.0 meters) away. The
subject was cautioned not to take time to aim, to ensure
the choice of hand would be their natural hand for throw-
ing. Five darts were thrown in this manner and the hand
used was recorded. All subjects used the same hand for
all five trials. To mask the true purpose of the test,
each subject was told it was a test of their ability to

react quickly.

46

Research Design

 

The study was essentially an Ex Post Facto design
because the independent variables, hand and eye dominance,
had already been established in the subjects and thus
pre-assigned them to comparison groups. The four compari-
son groups obtained from the hand and eye dominance testing
were: Group I--right-handed, right-eyed. subjects;

Group II--right-handed, left-eyed subjects; Group III--
left-handed, right-eyed subjects; and Group IV--left-
handed, left-eyed subjects.

Weighted dart throwing was used to obtain measures
for the three dependent variables; overall accuracy,
directional errors in the right and left halves of the
target, and directional errors in the top and bottom
halves of the target. It was reasoned that weighted darts
would reduce the chance for bias due to previous partici-

pation in dart throwing with regular darts.

Apparatus

 

A 36 x 36 inch (91.5 x 91.5 centimeter) target
(Figure 3.1) made of a compressed material was mounted in
a vertical position between two uprights. The uprights
were constructed so the target face could be adjusted to
the height of each subject. The target face consisted of
six concentric circles of equal width (4.5 centimeters)

drawn on an off-white board in black ink, with each

+6

+5

+4

 

 

 

 

\\ \ *3

 

\\

\\\

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

 

-2 -l o +| +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

 

//l Jes-

-3

 

-4

/ // "'5‘

 

-5

 

-6

 

 

+

 

+5

 

 

*3 / //

 

 

I cm. = 4.5 cm.

 

Scale:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-2 -I O +I +2 +3 +4 +5 +6

 

 

-3

 

-4

 

-5

 

-6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.! The Target Face

-2\\\

48

demarcation line being 2/16 of an inch (3 millimeters)
wide. The mid—point radii of the intervals thus formed
were 4.5, 9.0, 13.5, 18.0, 22.5, and 27.0 centimeters,
respectively. The total scoreable diameter of the target
face was 58.5 centimeters (approximately 23 inches). The
bull's eye in the center was a circle 4.5 centimeters in
diameter and solid black in color.

A grid was superimposed on the target face using
fine, red lines so that it was visible to the experimenter,
but not the subjects. Each square of the grid measured
4.5 x 4.5 centimeters, which corresponded to the width of
the concentric circles. There were six grid intervals to
the right and six to the left of the bull's eye. The inter-
vals to the right were numbered from +1 to +6 and the
intervals to the left from -1 to -6, starting beside the
bull's eye and numbering outward. Similarly, there were
six grid intervals above the bull's eye and six below.

The intervals above were numbered from +1 to +6 and the
intervals below from -1 to -6, starting beside the bull's
eye. The plus and minus signs were used to indicate dire
ection only. Each interval or directional error score
(one to six) could be converted to distance from the
bull's eye by multiplying by 4.5 centimeters.

The darts used were manufactured by the Unicorn
Dart Company in England (code 03285), had an overall length
of 6.5 inches (16.5 centimeters) and a metal point of .87

inch (2.3 centimeters). The weighted metallic grip was

49

2.62 inches (6.7 centimeters) long, and the upper end of
the shaft was wood and had a length of 1.75 inches (4.5
centimeters) on the end feathered. The average weight of
the six darts used during the study was 29.36 grams with
a range of 29.24-29.44 grams. (One of the original five
darts was broken during the study and replaced by one of

comparable weight.)
Measures

Darts were thrown at the target from a distance of
10 feet (3.0 meters). The 10 foot subject-target distance
was adopted because it was found to be the best distance
from the board for adults (Johnson, 1919), and is close to
the nine feet used in the English."20—Point" Dart Game.
Each dart thrown received three scores. One for accuracy,
one for right-left directional error, and one for direc-
tional error above or below the bull's eye.

Accuracy (X1) was measured using the six concentric
circles. A zero was recorded for a bull's eye, one point
for a hit in the innermost circle, two points for a hit in
the second circle, and so forth out to a score of six in
the sixth concentric circle. An accuracy score of seven
was given for any hits beyond the sixth circle. Thus, the
lower the score, the more accurate the throw.

Right-left directional error scores (X2) indicated
the magnitude of the error in the horizontal plane and

its direction from the bull's eye. A plus was used to

50

show the throw was to the right and a minus to the left
of the bull's eye. Scores ranged from zero in the inter-
val containing the bull's eye to +6 at the far right and
-6 at the far left. A score of seven was given for any
hits beyond these boundaries. Lower scores indicated
less deviation from the target center (greater accuracy)
in the horizontal plane.

Above-below directional error scores (X3) indicated
the magnitude of the error in the vertical plane and its
direction from the bull's eye. A plus was used to show
the throw was above and a minus below the bull's eye.
Scores ranged from zero in the interval containing the
bull's eye to +6 at the tOp edge of the target and -6 at
the bottom edge. A score of seven was given for any hits
beyond these boundaries. Lower scores indicated less
deviation from the target center (greater accuracy) in the

vertical plane.

Procedures

 

Data was secured for the study during April, 1974.
Each subject attended two measurement sessions of dart
throwing within a period of seven days. Two sessions
were used to avoid boredom of the subject and to obtain the
desired number of trials. During each of the two measure-
ment sessions, each subject was_given five successive
practice throws (determined from the Pilot Study, Appendix

A) followed by a brief interval while the darts were

51

retrieved by the investigator. Five additional sets of
five trials each were given and the 25 trials were scored
for accuracy, R-L (right—left) directional error, and A-B
(above-below) directional error. The interval between
sets was only long enough to score and retrieve the darts.

To remove the possibility of external invalidity
due to subjects' knowledge of research, efforts were made
to keep the subjects uninformed as to the true purpose of
the study. In order to accomplish this objective and also
to increase motivation, the subject was given 100 points
for each "bull's eye" and 50 points for a hit in the
circle adjacent to the bull's eye. No points were awarded
outside these two areas. This scoring system also provided
immediate feedback for the subject.

All tests and measurements were performed by the
investigator during the regularly scheduled physical
education class of the subject in the same unoccupied room
at the school. Only the investigator and subject were

present for each session.

Data Collection

 

The top edge of the target face was adjusted to
match each subject's head height. This placed the bull's
eye of the target at approximately shoulder height, which
was about the level of dart release. Using a carpenter's
right-angle square and tape measure, a restraining line

was marked 10 feet (3.0 meters) from the target with a

52

two foot piece of tape. The exact center of the target
was located on the restraining line and indicated by
placing a piece of tape perpendicular to the restraining
line. A "T" was thus formed. The subject was instructed
to stand with one foot on the line indicating the center
of the target. (The foot to be used was not specified to
avoid biasing the data in favor of ipsilateral or contra-
lateral—dominant individuals.) Other than this, no
special position of the feet was required except that one
foot had to touch the 10 foot restraining line and could
not go over it. A subject could stand with.feet side by
side or in stride position.

The method of throwing the darts was not controlled
except that a posterior-anterior overhand throw was
required. The dart was held between the thumb and first
two fingers with the hand above the subject's throwing
shoulder. The throw was made by extension of the flexed

forearm and wrist.
Scoring and Recording

During the first measurement session, trials 1-5
were allowed for practice and were not scored. Each
trial 6-30 received three scores; one for each of the
dependent variables X1, X2, and X3. The Xl (accuracy)
score was recorded as an integer from zero to seven,
representing hits in the concentric circles of the target.

The X (R-L directional error) score was recorded as an

2

53

integer from zero to seven, representing the distance
from the bull's eye, and was preceded by a plus or minus
to indicate the direction of the error. The X3 (A—B
directional error) score was recorded as an integer from
zero to seven, representing the distance from the bull's
eye, and was preceded by a plus or minus to indicate the
direction of the error.

The second measurement session was recorded in a
similar manner with trials 31-35 used for practice and
1, X2, and X3. All scores can
be converted to their equivalent distances from the

trials 36-60 scored for X

center of the target; i.e., an accuracy score (X1) of four
would indicate the throw was 18.0 centimeters (4 x 4.5 cm.)
from the center of the target, and a R-L directional error
score of minus three would indicate the throw was 13.5

centimeters to the left of the bull's eye.

Treatment of the Data

 

The data was treated as a fixed-effects, 2 x 2
design having right and left categories of hand dominance,
and right and left categories of eye dominance. Main
effects were obtained for hand dominance and for eye
dominance on each of the three dependent variables. Inter-
action effects of hand-eye dominance (RH-RE, RH—LE, LH-RE,
LH-LE) were obtained for the three dependent variables.

The influence of ipsilateral dominance and contralateral

dominance on each dependent variable was obtained by

54

grouping the RH-RE and LH—LE groups together (ipsilateral),

and the RH-LE and LH-RE groups together (contralateral).
Sets of five trials each were used to organize

the data into more representative scores than were yielded

by individual trials. (Darts were thrown in sets of five.)

That is, accuracy was represented by summing the scores

for five trials, and R-L and A-B directional errors were

represented by algebraic summation of the scores for

five trials. Data was submitted to the CDC 6500 computer

at Michigan State University for analysis.
Statistical Procedures

Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
evaluate the influence of hand and eye dominance on
overall accuracy, R-L directional errors, and A-B direc-
tional errors. A_priori comparison tests were used to
evaluate the influence of ipsilateral and contralateral
dominance on overall accuracy, R-L directional errors,
and A-B directional errors.

The use of multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was investigated based on the correlation shown
between dependent variables on the pilot study. R—L direc-
tional error had little relationship to accuracy (r=.03)
or to A-B directional error (r=-.12). Accuracy and A-B
directional error also were not highly related (r=—.4l).
MANOVA, therefore, was not deemed necessary for analyzing

the study.

55

Significance Level

 

Alpha was set at the .05 level for the study.
However, the ANOVA's for accuracy and A-B directional error
were tested at the .025 level due to the additive effect
caused by the dependency existing between the two variables
(revealed by the pilot study, Appendix A).

The .05 level of significance was selected for the
study because it agrees with that conventionally used in
education and the behavioral sciences. The investigator
believed the risk of committing a Type I error could be
tolerated in view of the possible importance that signi-

ficant findings might have for future research.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study was undertaken to determine the influence
of lateral dominance on throwing accuracy, on the direction
of errors made in the right and left halves of the target,
and on the direction of errors made in the top and bottom
halves of the target. The chapter will begin with a brief
description of the relationships found between the three
dependent variables. Results will then be presented and
analyzed separately for each variable in this order:
accuracy (X1), R-L directional error (X2), and A—B direCn
tional error (X3). Finally, a discussion offering some

rationale for the observed data will be presented.

Relationships Among Dependent Variables

 

The BASTAT program was utilized to compute simple
correlations between pairs of the dependent variables
(Table 4.1). The results indicated that R-L directional
error was not significantly related to either of the other
two variables. RrL directional error had a correlation

of r=-.03 with accuracy. The same correlation coefficient

56

57

TABLE 4.l.--Correlations Between Dependent Variables.

 

 

X1 x2 X 3
X1 (Accuracy) 1.000 — .033 - .385
X2 (R-L error) 1.000 - .240
X3 (A-B error) 1.000

 

had been obtained between these two variables on the

pilot study, except the relationship was positive (r=+.03).
The correlation of R-L directional error with A-B direc—
tional error was r=-.24, which was slightly higher than
that obtained on the pilot study (r=-.12). Accuracy and
A—B directional error exhibited the highest correlation,
r=-.39. This was slightly lower than the pilot study
correlation between the two variables (r=-.4l). The
relationship between accuracy and A-B directional error

was not high enough to permit prediction (R2=.16).

Statistical Results

 

The AOV program for the CDC 6500 computer at
Michigan State University was used for the analyses. Line
graphs have been used to present pictures of the perform-
ances of the four laterality groups and of the ipsilateral-

contralateral groupings.

58

Accuracy

The LH-RE group was least accurate during both
sessions of dart throwing as indicated by the upper curve
in Figure 4.1. Although not as noticeable in Trials
6-30 as in Trials 36-60, the LH—LE and RH-RE groups
occupied a middle position, and the RH-LE group was the
most accurate. This phenomena was reflected in the mean
accuracy scores for the groups. Means for the LH-RE,
LH-LE, RH-RE, and RH-LE groups were, respectively: 3.03,
3.20, 3.20, and 3.59. Each mean, when multiplied by 4.5
centimeters, gives the average distance from the bull's
eye for the group.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was not signifi-
cant for the main effects of hand dominance and eye
dominance or for their interaction (Table 4.2). The power
of the tests were found to be less than .20, which was
too low to detect significant differences between groups.

The §_priori comparisons test between the ipsilateral
(RH-RE and LH-LE) and contralateral (RH-LE and LH-RE) groups
failed to show a significant difference (F=.35). In the
graph of Trials 6-30 (Figure 4.2), the ipsilateral group
appeared to be more accurate than the contralateral group.

This pattern was not repeated during Trials 36-60, however.

59

.mmsouo wuflamuoumq ha momusoom Hamuo>OIl.H.v musmflm

manage
om mm om m: 0: on mm om we as
-om -Hm -oa -Hs. -om -o~ -Hm. -oH -HH -o

W

alum“ eoooeeoo \\
male -.-.-.-.-

mum-5 llll
3-5 Ill

 

 

03H

one

00H

05H

owH

omH

com

OHN

eaoos Kaeanaav Iago;

aura-midsugmfinflfiufnni

5.... .

60

TABLE 4.2.—-ANOVA of Accuracy Scores.

 

 

 

 

   

Source SS df MS F P
A (Hand) .885 l .885 2.39 .130
B (Eye) .862 l .862 2.33 .135
AB .130 1 .130 .35 .556
Error 14.828 40 .371
Total 16.706 43
Ipsilateral

a) 400 \\ "'—"' Contralateral
u
5'; \
>‘ 380 \ ——--K\
o
m
*5 360
o
0
<1
1- 340
m
4.)
o
9* 320

300

 

 

6- 11- 16- 21- 26— 36- 41- 46- 51- 56-
10 15 20 25 30 40 45 50 55 60

Trials

Figure 4.2.—-Ipsilateral-Contralateral Accuracy.

61

R-L Directional Error

 

The graph of the results of Trials 6—30 (Figure
4.3) indicates that all left-handed subjects threw to the
right of target center for the majority of their trials,
as shown by their curves in the positive half of the
graph. The RH—RE group varied from side to side, but
tended to be more positive than negative. The RH—LE group
consistently threw to the left of target center, and
became more deviant with increasing trials.

The pattern changed somewhat during Trials 36-60
(Figure 4.3). The contralateral groups (RH-LE and LH—RE)
continued to throw to the side of the target opposite their
throwing hand. That is, the LH-RE group threw to the right
half of the target and the RH-LE group threw to the left
half of the target. The ipsilateral groups (RH-RE and
LH-LE) varied from side to side with an average very close
to center. The two ipsilateral groups had curves that
were very similar during Trials 46—60.

The ANOVA for R-L directional error (Table 4.3)
did not demonstrate the main effects of hand dominance and
of eye dominance to be significant factors in the direction
in which errors were made. The interaction effect of hand
and eye was also not significant. Power for the test
was less than .30, which was not sufficient to detect

significant differences between laterality groups.

.mmsouu huflamnwumq ha Houum Hmcofiuomnflo Alm||.m.v musmflm

 

 

 

 

 

 

manage
ow mm on m: on on mm om ma oa
Ihmh Am 1.5 Ha Lon -mm Am 1: -S -o
om-
flu
om- My
1.
HI
m o
oa+ “H
T!
on
w
o~+ ,-
om+
QMUIM 00000000
m—H'é olo'olo'.
mm-E Illl

 

GJOOS Joaag q-g Iago;

63

TABLE 4.3.--ANOVA of R-L Directional Error.

w—v

 

Source SS df MS F P
A (Hand) 1.146 1 1.146 2.16 .149
B (Eye) 1.107 1 1.107 2.09 .156
AB .260 1 .260 .49 .488
Error 21.216 40 .530

Total 23.728 43

 

A plot of ipsilateral versus contralateral groups
(Figure 4.4) showed the ipsilateral group threw to the
right of center and the contralateral group threw pre-
dominantly to the left of center in Trials 6~30. The
pattern was similar for both groups. This effect, so
evident during Trials 6-30, did not recur during Trials
36-60. The tendency of both groups to reverse sides
acted to negate the effects of Trials 6-30 in the overall
effects for 50 trials.

The means obtained for the four groups confirmed
the observed "crossing-over" phenomena of contralateral
individuals (LH-RE = -.25; RH-LE = -.39), and the tendency
of ipsilateral individuals to deviate equally to the
right and left of center (RH-RE = +.08; LH-LE = +.09).

The negative mean for the RH-LE group created a
problem for the §_priori comparisons test due to the
algebraic cancellation of contralateral means which acted

to obliterate the true situation. Reversion to the use of

Total R-L Error Score

64

 

Ipsilateral
T40 —_- Contralateral
'8-
«4
5420
\ I\
n \\ y. l
\ ,” \\ '7 \\
—2o \’ \ / \
33 \
m
5—40
-60

 

 

6- 11- 16- 21- 26- 36- 41- 46- 51- 56-
10 15 20 25 30 40 45 50 55 60

Trials

Figure 4.4.--Ipsilateral-Contralateral R-L Error.

absolute scores would result in simply another measure of
accuracy and not of directional error. The problem was
solved by changing the reference point for deviations from
that of the bull's eye to that of the means for handedness
(Scale A, Figure 4.5). That is, the new points of refer-
ence were the means obtained for all leftwhanded subjects
(+.17) and for all right-handed subjects (-.15). Devia-
tions from these points reflected the influence of eye
dominance on the direction of the throw. If the eye tended
to correct the error by moving the mean toward zero, the
deviation was considered positive. If the influence of eye
dominance moved the mean in the other direction (away from

zero), the deviation was considered negative. The

65

correction scores thus obtained for each group were:
RH-LE = -.24; LH-RE = —.08; RH—RE = +.23; LH-LE = +.O8

(Scale E, Figure 4.5).

 

 

— + + .—
deviations *- RH(--15) —->- «<— LH(.17) —>—

A 1 I l : 1 l 1 : J I LA
-4 -3 —2 t -l 0 +1 :+2 -+3 +4
0 R S :O L

. LH- ; LII—RE
RH-LE ‘5 RH-RE LE : (.25)
(:.39) Z (.08) ”(.09)E
B l I I : l I a. l ‘ i B
S ifs I
-4 ‘\ :2” “x 0 ’x \‘ ’,‘\\+2 ’I +4
‘\ I s ,’ ‘ I \ I
~ I ~ , \
~ ” ‘~ I \ ’ ‘ I
~’I \"’ ‘l’ "I
Y V v v
x=-.24 x=+.23 x=+.08 x=-.08
(RH-LE) (RH-RE) (LH-LE) (LH-RE)
x = correction scores

Figure 4.5.--Correction Scores from Means of Handedness.

The a priori comparisons test utilized the correc-
tion scores to compare ipsilateral and contralateral
dominance of hand and eye on the right—left direction of
errors. The obtained F = 2.06 was not significant at the

.05 level.

A-B Directional Error

 

All groups threw consistently to the bottom half
of the target, as shown by the curves in Figures 4.6 and
4.7. The right—handed groups were least deviant. The

obtained means were: RH—LE = ~.247; RH—RE = -.315;

66

.mmnouo Muflamumumq ma uounm Hmcoflpomnflo mlmll.m.¢ musmflm

manage

 

 

 

 

 

 

om mm om me 0: on mm om me as
-on Am 6? A: 6E 6H E -o E.-
I" 00..-
/
met
m.-
om- m.
0
m-
we-
...

a. 10 o

o o.

a .

... ma... )
aim-Hm 0.00.... can o\o ms
almm elelelolo o‘e‘ on... a“
me-E IIII (

 

 

eaoos aoaag q-v Iago;

67

Lh-LE = -.396; LH-RE = -.709. The LH—LE and RH-RE groups
tended to have similar patterns during Trials 6—30
(Figure 4.6), but not during Trials 36-60.

The ANOVA (Table 4.4) indicated hand dominance,
eye dominance, and the interaction of hand and eye
dominance were not significant factors in the direction
of errors made in the top and bottom halves of the target.
Power of the tests was low, being less than .20 in each
case. The a priori comparisons test between ipsilateral
and contralateral groups failed to show a significant

difference, with F = .36.

+20 """""""" Ipsilateral
Contralateral

’03
>
o
g ——_

 

Total A-B Error Score

 

 

 

6— 11- 16— 21- 26- 36- 41' 46- 51- 56-
10 15 20 25 30 4O 45 50 55 60

Trials

Figure 4.7.-—Ipsilateral—Contralateral A-B Error.

68

TABLE 4.4.--ANOVA of A-B Directional Error.

 

 

 

Source SS df MS . F P
A (Hand) .813 1 .813 1.78 .189
B (Eye) .397 1 .397 .87 .356
AB .165 l .165 .36 .550
Error 18.237 40 .456
Total 19.613 43

DiScussion

 

The moderate correlation found between accuracy
of throwing (as measured using concentric circles) and
errors above or below a horizontal line drawn through the
target center can be logically explained. Accuracy is
essentially a function of the power of the throw, the
angle of release, or some combination of these factors.
These same factors are involved in errors made above
or below target center. A weak throw will drop to the
bottom half of the target, especially when weighted darts
are used. Likewise, the angle of release is crucial to
the A-B direction of the error. Releasing the dart too
soon results in.a hit above the center of the target, and
holding the dart too long results in a downward trajectory
and a hit in the bottom half of the target. The negative
correlation between accuracy and A-B directional error
should be readily apparent as all groups consistently threw

below the bull's eye. As accuracy increased, indicated by

69

a throw close to the bull's eye, the A-B directional error
decreased, and vice versa.

The distance of the throw is related to both
the A-B direction of errors and the R-L direction of
errors. It is related to the A-B direction due to the
power factor discussed previously. Distance is, however,
deemed more important in the direction of R-L errors than
in A-B errors (Moffett, 1942). Any error in the R-L
direction of the throw is magnified as the distance traversed
by the object increases. Thus, the "crossing—over"
phenomena exhibited by the contralateral subjects should
become more evident with an increase in throwing distance.

Some rationale for the observed effects of hand
and eye dominance on the R—L direction of errors is
offered. As noted in scale A of Figure 4.5, left-handed
subjects tended to throw to the right of center and right-
handed subjects to the left of center. The pectoralis
muscles contract to bring the arm and shoulder toward
the mid-line of the body. The movement continues until
the throwing arm is in line with the dominant eye. If
the dominant eye is on the same side of the body as the
throwing arm, the mid-line movement.(R-L direction) is
halted short of the mid—line. This effectively acts to
correct the natural cross-body movement for ipsilateral
individuals. If the dominant eye is not on the same side
of the body as the throwing arm, the mid-line movement

(R-L direction) continues across the mid~line to line up

70

with the contralaterally dominant eye. This action
accentuates the natural R-L movement of the throwing

arm. These results were depicted in scale B of Figure
4.5. The distances involved between the mid—line and the
dominant eye are indeed small, but these small R—L
directional errors are magnified as distance from the body
increases.

The mean R-L directional error for the total sample
used in this study was found to be +.01 using the BASTAT
program. This was less deviant than the horizontal-
directional scores reported by Malina (1968). The tendency
in the present study for a mean score to the right of center
on the first session and a mean score to the left of center
on the second session can also be observed in the data
presented by Malina. No explanation for this reversal
is attempted at this time.

The investigator was curious concerning the fre—
quency of errors made to the right or left of the bull's
eye by groups differing in hand and eye dominance. A
2 x 4 Chi—Square contingency test yielded no significant
difference between the four laterality groups in the
frequency of errors right and left of target center. How-
ever, a comparison of ipsilateral and contralateral groups
on frequency of errors to the dominant and non-dominant eye
sides of the target was statistically significant at the
.05 level. The 2 x 2 Chi-Square contingency test revealed

the contralateral group made significantly more errors

71

toward the dominant eye side of the target than toward
the non-dominant eye side. The ipsilateral group did
not differentiate significantly between dominant and non-
dominant eye sides of the target in frequency of errors
made. This discovery would tend to support the findings
of Shick (1971) who found contralateral subjects made a

higher percentage of errors toward the dominant eye side

of their body.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The purpose of the present investigation was to
determine the influence of hand dominance, eye dominance,
and combinations of hand and eye dominance on the accuracy
of throwing at a target , and on the direction of errors
made when throwing at a target. The directions considered
were the right and left halves of the target and the
upper and lower halves of the target.

Eleven subjects were randomly selected from each
of four laterality strata (right-handed and right-eyed;
right-handed and left-eyed; left-handed and right-eyed;
left-handed and left-eyed) which_had been obtained from a
population of 238 high school girls at Eastern High
School, Lansing, Michigan. They ranged in age from 15
years to 19 years. The mean age was 16.2 years. Approxi—
mately 82 percent of the sample were Sophomore girls
enrolled in a required physical education program. The
remaining 18 percent were Junior or Senior girls enrolled

in an elective physical education program.

72

73

Each subject was given 30 trials of dart throwing
during each of two class periods. The first five throws
of each session were allowed for practice and the last
25 throws were scored for accuracy, R~L directional
error, and AvB directional error. Darts were thrown in
sets of five trials each and scores by sets were used to
analyze the data.

Graphs of scores by sets of trials were constructed
for each laterality group on accuracy, R—L directional
error, and A-B directional error. Patterns were not con-
sistent between the two sessions of dart throwing.

Analysis of variance using scores by sets of
trials failed to detect significant differences between
laterality groups on accuracy of throwing, R—L direction
of errors, or A-B direction of errors. A_priori comparison
tests of ipsilateral and contralateral-dominant groups
on the three dependent variables failed to show signifi-

cant differences between the groups.

Conclusions

 

The following conclusions were drawn from the data
within the limitations of this study:
1. Hand dominance, eye dominance, and combina-
tions of hand and eye dominance failed to
be significant influences on the accuracy

of throwing at a target.

74

Hand dominance, eye dominance, and combina-
tions of hand and eye dominance failed to
significantly influence the direction of
throwing errors when errors were measured
by magnitude and direction of deviation.
Ipsilateral and contralateral dominance of
hand and eye failed to be significant
factors on the direction in which errors
were made or on the accuracy attained when

throwing at a target.

Recommendations

 

Some suggestions for future research on the problem

investigated in this study are:

1.

Since the power of the test used to analyze
the data was low, the study should be
repeated using larger sample sizes.

A study of errors made following attainment
of a higher degree of skill in dart throwing,
and of the results obtained when an uninter-
rupted session of dart throwing is used,
would be of interest.

The frequency of errors made toward the
dominant and non—dominant eye sides of the

body by ipsilateral and contralateral

75

individuals should be investigated. A
parallel study might be used to determine

the magnitude of the deviations.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

PILOT STUDY

-s'!

*W'

 

 

PILOT STUDY

The pilot study was conducted in February, 1974,
to determine the learning curve of dart throwing and to
investigate the correlation between the three dependent
variables. A knowledge of the dependency between vari-
ables was necessary to make decisions related to the
statistical analyses of the main study. Specifically, a
determination of which trials should be used to avoid a
learning factor was sought; an estimate of the variability
of each dependent variable was required to calculate a
necessary and suficient sample size for each comparison
group to be used in the main study; and an estimate of
the dependency existing between the three variables was
necessary to evaluate the feasibility of using MANOVA to
analyze the main study and to adjust significance levels
to accomodate dependence if separate ANOVA's were employed
instead of MANOVA.

Twenty available college women were used as sub—
jects (mean age 20.5 years) with five subjects in each of
the four laterality groups (RH-RE, RH-LE, LH-RE, LH—LE).
Subjects were asked to throw 30 darts in sets of five
each during each of two sessions separated by a one week

period of time. All 60 throws were scored for X1

76

77

(accuracy), X2 (R-L directional error), and X3 (A-B

directional error) in the same manner to be used in the
main study. Data was analyzed by the BASTAT program of
the CDC 6500 computer at the Michigan State University

Computer Laboratory.
Results

The obtained means by trials (Table A-1) and the
graphing of learning curves (Figure A-l) for each depen-
dent variable both indicated a large improvement in
performance occurred between the first and second sets of
five trials in each session, with a relative leveling off
thereafter. It was decided to allow the first five throws
of each session for practice and to score the final 25
throws for the dependent variables.

The standard deviation of each variable for 50
trials (Table A-1) indicated a variability of approximately
one-half interval (about 2.25 cm.). Using this information,
an estimate of a necessary and sufficient sample size for
each group was determined to be n=ll.

MANOVA was deemed unfeasible based on the correla-
X

tion between X and X for 50 trials (Table A—l). In

1’ 2’ 3

fact, the correlations of X2 with X1 and X3 were so trivial

that R-L directional error could be considered independent

of accuracy and A—B directional error.

TABLE A-1.--Pilot Study Statistics.

78

 

 

 

 

Standard Sign. of
Trials Mean Deviation the Mean
1-5 19.20 5.53 .005
6-30 2.80 .57 .005
p 1—30 2.97 .59 .005
3 31-35 15.90 4.97 .005
a 36-60 2.67 .64 .005
“('8 31-60 2.75 .66 .005
g 1—5 + 31—35 3.51 .89 .005
6-30 + 36-60 2.73 .56 .005
1—30 + 31-60 2.86 .58 .005
1—5 4.15 8.92 .051
6-30 .27 .74 .121
3 1-30 .36 .79 .054
3 31-35 .20 7.27 .903
03m 36-60 .13 .53 .281
X ,4 31-60 .10 .60 .448
é 1-5 + 31—35 .44 1.43 .190
6-30 + 36-60 .07 .54 .574
1—30 + 31-60 .13 .60 .343
1-5 3.15 12.15 .260
6-30 .25 .88 .205
3 1-30 .11 1.05 .644
a 31-35 .30 8.19 .872
«,3 36-60 .44 .66 .008
.>< m 31-60 .38 .66 .020
- 1-5 + 31-35 .29 1.66 .452
4 6-30 + 36-60 .35 .68 .034
1-30 + 31-60 .24 .78 .180
Correlations Significance
1 X2 X3 of Regression
xl 1.000 .033 .412 xl---x2 P—.892
x2 1.000 .115 x1 x3 p—.071
x3 1.000 x2 x3 P-.628

 

Xl Accuracy (n=20)

X2 R-L Error (n=20)

X3 A-B Error (n=20)

375
350
325
300

275

250

+90
+60

+30

-30

-60

 

79

Session I Session II

_-——————_—

 

 

l- 6- 11- 16- 21- 26- 31- 36- 41- “6— 51- 56-
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 6O

Trials

Session 11

Session I

 

 

 

 

1- 6- ll- 16- 21- 26- 31- 36- 41- 46- 51- 56-
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 #0 45 50 55 60
Trials

Session I Session II

 

 

_——_—#_———

 

1- 6- 11- 16- 21- 26- 31- 36- 41- 46- 51- 56-
5 1o 15 20 25 3o 35 40 45 50 55 6o
Trials

Figure A-l.--Learning Curves for Dart Throwing.

Conclusions

 

1.

80

Trials 6-30 of the first measurement session
and trials 36—60 of the second session would
be scored in the main study.

An estimated necessary and sufficient sample
size for each comparison group would be n=ll.
Two-way ANOVA would be used to analyze the
main study. The significance level for the
ANOVA of R-L directional error would be held
at the .05 level originally set for the study.
The significance level for the ANOVA's on
accuracy and A—B directional error would be
set at .025 due to the additive effect of the
dependency between the two variables, and

the desire to hold the overall significance

level to .05.

 

 

 

 

S m OH NH oH mH NH oH m m 6H mH oHo
«H mH vH 0H NH HN HH vH mH NN SH SN moo
mH m m «H NH m mH «H mH «H mH mH moo
Hm HH me 4m 5H 6H 5H mm. NH Hm mH om boo
oH oH mH NN mH SH oH mH oH HN oH mH moo
pomnnam
Amqlmmv HH msouo How Amomncoodex
a
HH 5 HH NH HN mH oH mH HH NH NH SN moo
OH m oH oH NH oH HH HH MH oH HN oH woo
HH m SH o OH NH oH mH HH MH HH HH moo
m MH HH mH oH oH mH m h oH 0H NH Noo
n oH oH oH n m m o mH m a HH Hoo
pommnsm
Ammlmmv H moono Mom Amomusoodex
oolom mmuHm omuov mquo ovlom mmuHm omloN mNIHN oNIoH mHnHH oHIo mIH umHMHHB

 

.6066 36m mocha uoHHm-.N-< mamas

 

82

 

 

 

 

OH OH O OH ON ON HH SH OH OH OH OH ONO
NN OH OH SH mH ON NH OH OH HH SH HN mHO
SH MN OH OH HN OH HN mN OH OH OH ON OHO
O HH OH HH OH S OH O OH OH OH NN SHO
OH S O OH S O HH HH OH OH OH O OHO
pomnnsm
AmHImHV >H msonw How Amumusoodex
OH NH ON ON mH HN OH mN HN OH ON ON .1 mHo
O OH OH SH NH SH m HH mH HH OH ON OHO
HH OH OH OH OH SH OH OH O OH OH ON mHo
O OH HH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH SH HN NHo
NH OH OH ON O OH O OH SH HH OH OH HHo
aomnnsm
AmmlmHv HHH QDOHU How Amomudoodex
OOIOO mmIHm OOIOO mOaHO OOsOm Omle omnON mNIHN ONIOH OHIHH OHIO mlH umHMHHB

 

.UODGNUGOUII-Ntd MHmdfi

83

 

 

 

 

No+ HO- No: OOI So+ So: oo Ho+ No+ mo: Oo+ Oo+ OHO
Non Oo+ OOI Non OOI mo+ No+ mo: mo: Oo+ Ho+ mo+ OOO
OOI mOI Ho+ OOI Oo+ Hon Oo+ So: OO HOI mo: Oo+ OOO
mo: Ho+ So+ HHI OOI OO So: mo: mo: mo: Ho: Oo+ SOO
HH+ No: No+ OOI Sou moi OO Oo+ No: SOI Ho+ Oo+ OOO
pomflnsm
AmHlmmv HH msoum Mom Anonum HMQOHOUOHHO Hlmv Nx
Ho+ No+ mo: oo Ho+ HH+ OH+ HOI Oo+ No+ Oo+ MN+ moo
No: HOI No+ HOI Non Oo+ Hon No+ OOI OO Oo+ NH+ OOO
Oo+ So+ OH+ OO Oo+ OH+ Oo+ OOI Oo+ OH+ Hon Oo+ moo
mo: Hon OOI OOI mo: Son mo: OOI mo: mo: Hon Ho+ NOO
Oo+ oo HOI OOI Non Ho: Ho: No+ OO OOI OO Hon HOO
pommnsm
Ammlmmv H msouo How Auouum HcGOHpomHHp Hlmv Nx
OOIOm mmuHm OOIOO OOIHO OOIOm mmnHm OmION ONIHN ONIOH mHuHH OHIO OIH "mHMHHB

 

.UOSCHHGOUII-Nld mqmde

84

 

 

 

 

NOI SoI OO NOI OO SOI NOI OO No+ NOI No+ No+ ONO
HOI Hon Oo+ NOI mo+ OH+ HOI OH+ Oo+ Ho+ No+ Oo+ OHO
mo+ OO NH+ OOI OHI No+ OH+ HOI No+ NH+ Oo+ OH+ OHO
OO No+ HOI OO Oo+ Ho+ HoI Oo+ Ho+ No+ No+ Oo+ SHO
OOI NOI NOI HOI NOI moI NOI OO No+ Ho+ Ho+ NOI OHO
pomflnsm
Amqnmqv >H msoum How Auouum HMGOHHUOHHO HImVNx
No+ OOI OOI NOI OO Oo+ OH+ NH+ OH+ Oo+ HH+ OH+ OHO
No+ HOI NOI NOI oo Ool No+ HOI NOI No+ NOI Sol OHO
Non SOI OOI oo No+ NOI Oo+ Ool Ho+ HOI OOI OHI NHO
No+ Oo+ NOI OH+ HOI NOI Ho+ So+ No+ OH+ OOI SOI NHO
No+ Oo+ No+ Oo+ NOI SOI HOI No+ No+ Oo+ Oo+ Ool pommwmm
Ame-OHO HHH macho now lacuna HacOHuomuHo q-mva
OOIOm mmIHm OOIOO OOIHO OOION ONIHN ONION ONIHN ONIOH mHIHH OHIO mIH umHMHHB

 

.UOSGHDGOUII.NIm mqmme

85

 

 

 

 

Ho+ HOI HOI SOI So+ NOI OOI mo: Oo+ Son Ho+ HH+ OHO
OOI OH+ HH+ OO Oo+ OH+ HH+ No+ mo+ OH+ NH+ OH+ OOO
OOI HOI Non NOI Oo+ NOI HOI No+ Oo+ HOI OOI SH+ OOO
NHI No: NoI mHI OOI NHI OOI OHI OOI OOI NHI OOI SOO
HOI OOI No+ NOI Nol OO NOI OOI OHI OOI HOI HHI OOO
pomflnam
AMHImmV HH moono H0O Anonum HmcoHuomuHO mIflva
Oo+ HOI OOI Oo+ OHI NHI OO HOI No+ Non Oo+ NN+ moo
Oo+ Ho+ Oo+ No+ NH+ OOI OO No+ SOI No+ SHI Oo+ OOO
Hol NOI HOI OOI OOI Oo+ Oo+ mo: NOI HOI SOI Oo+ NOO
OOI mOI NOI No+ OHI NOI No+ HOI NOI HOI No+ NOI NOO
NOI NOI HOI OOI HOI NOI OOI No+ OOI No+ No+ Oo+ HOO
hommnsm
Rum-mmv H macho now lacuna HmaoHuomuHo m-mvmx
OOIOm mmIHm OOIOO OOIHO OOION ONIHN ONION ONIHN ONIOH OHIHH OHIO OIH HmHMHHB

 

. UOSGAHCOUII . Nld mam-«H.

86

 

 

 

 

 

HHI HHI Oo+ OOI OoI OH+ No+ NOI Oo+ OOI HOI NH+ ONO
OOI oo OOI Oo+ NOI OHI OHI OoI So+ No+ Oo+ SOI OHO
HOI mHI OOI Ho+ moI Ho+ OOI NHI OOI OOI HHI ONI OHO
OOI Ho+ OOI HoI Oo+ No+ No+ NOI HOI Oo+ Oo+ OH+ SHO
NoI NOI OOI NoI NOI oo OOI HoI NoI OoI OOI No+ OHO
pomnnsm
AqumHv >H macaw How “Houum HmcoHuomuHO mIava
NHI moI NHI NOI OO NOI Ho+ OoI OOI NoI SOI OHI OHO
OO OoI Oo+ OHI SOI NoI Ho+ NoI OOI Oo+ Oo+ HHI OHO
Ho+ No+ Ho+ No+ NOI NH+ HH+ Ho+ NOI No+ Oo+ HN+ NHO
Ho+ Oo+ OoI Ho+ Oo+ No+ SoI HOI OOI Ho+ Oo+ NoI NHO
OOI HHI SOI No+ NOI Ho+ OOI NOI Ho+ OOI OOI NOI HHO
poohnsm
AmmImHv HHH msouo How Anonnm HmcoHuomuHU mINONx
OOIOO OOIHO OOIOO OOIHO OOION mNIHN ONION ONIHN ONIOH OHIHH OHIO OIH umHMHHB

 

.UOSGH#COUII.NI¢ mHm¢B

APPENDIX B

EYE DOMINANCE TEST

THE HOLE-IN-—CARD EYE DOMINANCE TEST

A card 10.1 cm. by 23.0 cm. with a hole in the
center of 6 mm. diameter was used to sight objects pre-
sented by the investigator at a distance of 10 feet (3.0
meters). Each card presented had a different figure or
letter displayed which was large and clear. The object

cards measured 12.8 cm. by 20.3 cm.
Instructions to the subject were:

I am going to test your quickness and sharpness
of vision by showing you cards on which there
is a letter or figure. I will sit at that desk,
and you will sit at this desk. Leave the card
with the hole in it on the desk until I tell
you to raise it. When I say "ready, up," pick
up the card using both hands and hold it about

6 inches (15 cm.) from your face.

The investigator demonstrated, but turned sideways
so the subject could not see her face directly, but could
see the distance involved.

Be sure to keep both eyes open. Look through
the hole in the center of your card at the
card which I will hold up just beneath my chin.
I will hold it for one second.‘ When I put my
card down, put yours down, and then tell me
what you saw on my card, and what color it was.

Do you have any questions about what I want
you to do?

The investigator recorded the eye seen through the

hole for each of the ten trials. To score eyedness, a +1

87

gnu-J. ”15!".— MESH-\quflluli

88

was given for each right-eye response and a -l for each
left-eye response. A final positive score indicated a
right eye dominance or tendency, and a final negative

score indicated a left eye dominance or tendency.

APPENDIX C

RAW DATA

89

 

 

 

 

O O OH OH OH SH NH OH NN OH NNO
OH NH O OH OH OH NH OH ON SH HNO
OH HH OH OH OH OH OH OH NH HH ONO
OH NN SH OH OH SH OH NH OH HN OHO
O O NH OH NH HH NH OH OH HN OHO
NH OH OH OH NN SH NN NN HH SH SHO
OH OH ON HN OH OH ON OH OH NN OHO
NH NH OH NH NH OH OH OH O OH OHO
NH NH SH S NN OH OH SH OH NH OHO
OH OH O NH ON SH NH NH SH HN NHO
HH SH OH OH NH SH OH ON NH OH NHO

pomflnsm

AMHImmV HH msonw mom AwomucoomvHx

NH ON OH OH ON OH NN SH OH OH HHO
NN SH SN OH SH OH HN NH ON OH OHO
HN OH HN OH ON HH OH OH O NH OOO
O OH NH OH OH ON NN ON NN OH OOO
O OH OH OH NH OH OH OH OH SH SOO
NH OH ON OH SH OH HH NH SH HN OOO
OH ON OH OH SN OH OH HN SH SH OOO
OH NH OH NH OH OH OH NH NH NH OOO
OH HH OH OH O O OH NH OH O NOO
NH HN OH OH OH OH OH OH NH NN NOO
OH HH OH OH OH OH NH SH OH O HOO

nomnnsm

Ammlmmv H muono How Amomusoodex
OOIOO OOIHO OOIOO OOIHO OOION ONION ONIHN ONIOH OHIHH OHIO umHMHHB

 

.MHMQ SmmII.HIU MHm<B

90

 

 

 

 

OH OH NH OH OH OH OH OH OH NH OOO
SH OH OH NH ON O NH OH OH OH NOO
OH OH SH OH OH O S NH NH OH NOO
OH ON ON ON OH OH SH OH HN ON HOO.
NH NH HN NH OH ON OH OH OH OH OOO
HN ON SH SN ON ON OH HN HN ON ONO
O OH NH SH HH NN O NH OH NH ONO
NN ON OH HN OH OH OH OH ON NH SNO
NH OH NH NH NN HH NN OH OH ON ONO
O O O O HH OH OH HN OH OH ONO
S OH S NH OH OH OH NH OH ON ONO
pomnnsm
AmHImHO >H msouw HomAmomusoodex
OH OH HN SH OH OH HN SH HN NN NNO
OH NN HN SN ON OH ON ON ON ON NNO
HN SN OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH HNO
ON ON OH ON OH OH SN ON OH ON ONO
ON OH OH OH OH NH OH OH NH SN ONO
O O OH OH NH OH O NH OH O ONO
SH OH OH ON NN OH ON OH NH NH SNO
SH OH NH SH OH ON HN ON OH NN ONO
ON OH HN HN S OH SH OH NH ON ONO
OH OH SH ON O ON HH ON OH HH ONO
SH OH OH OH OH NH NH OH OH ON NNO
pomnnam
AmmImHO HHH msono How ASOMHDOUNOHN
OOIOO OOIHO OOIOO OOIHO OOION ONION ONIHN ONIOH OHIHH OHIO umHMHHB

 

.UOSGHfiGOUIl-HIU HHMQB

No+ OO OOI Oo+ OHI OOI OHI OOI NHI OOI NNO

50- N0- O0- O0- mH- HHI m0- 0HI OHI NHI HNO
00- N0- MH+ O0- m0+ 00 Oo+ m0+ 00+ No+ 0N0
Ho+ 50- Ho+ 00+ N0I Oo+ No+ m0: m0+ Oo+ OH0
m0- H0- Oo+ H0+ 00 Oo+ 00 00 00 m0+ OH0
50- 50- NHI 00- O0- O0I O0: m0- O0- m0+ 5H0
O0- H0- 40- Oo+ O0- O0I m0I O0- O0- HHI OH0
00 No+ 00+ No+ Oo+ Oo+ 50- 50+ Ho+ 00- mHo
H0+ 00 O0- No+ O0I 00- 00- 50- 00 Oo+ OH0
H0- m0- m0- m0- m0- O0- 00+ H0- NH+ 50+ NH0
00- O0- Oo+ m0- Oo+ N0- 50- Ho+ mo- Oo+ NHO
pomnnsm

 

Ame-OOO HH @5606 you 146006 HmaoHuomuHO a-momx

 

91

00 HH- 00- N0+ Ho+ H0I 50- O0- m0- m0+ HHO
No+ N0- 00+ 40- No- O0- HHI Oo+ m0- 00 0H0
Ho+ 00 50+ O0- 00- H0- Ho+ Oo+ mo- 40+ O00
Ho+ H0- 00 m0+ 00+ m0- Oo+ OH+ HH+ OH+ O00
H0- 00- mo- 00- Ho- mo- m0+ 00- m0- HHI 500
00 m0- No+ Ho+ 00 H0- 00+ m0+ Oo+ 00 O00
40- m0- 00+ Ho+ O0+ 00+ m0+ No+ m0- H0- O00
00+ 00+ 00 m0+ 00+ 00 50- N0- ~0- N0- O00
50+ 00- O0; No+ 00 O0- Ho+ No+ m0- N0- N00
00 No+ Oo+ 00- 00 Oo+ O0+ Ho+ Oo+ 0H+ N00
m0+ m0- H0- 0H+ «0+ Oo+ 00+ Oo+ Ho- 00+ H00
pomflnsm

 

AmmImmv H muono How AHOHHO HMGOHOUOHHO HImVNN

 

OOIOO OOIHO OOIOO OOIHO OOION ONION ONIHN ONIOH OHIHH OHIO umeHHB

 

.UOSCHunooll-HIU MHm¢B

92

 

 

 

 

O0+ «0+ «0+ Oo+ «0+ 00+ 00+ m0+ Oo+ 00+ OO0
OH+ No+ Oo+ No+ OOI Oo+ Oo+ So+ Oo+ So+ NOO
00 «0+ Oo+ Ho+ 00 «0I «0+ 50- Oo+ 00+ «O0
NoI OHI OOI OOI SoI OOI NOI OOI OHI OHI HOO
Oo+ Ho+ Oo+ Oo+ NOI No+ OO OH+ Oo+ Oo+ OOO
Oo+ OHI OoI OHI NoI So+ OOI OOI Oo+ Oo+ ONO
No+ OoI NOI NOI HOI NoI Ho+ NOI SoI NOI ONO
Ho+ Oo+ HOI Oo+ oo Ho+ HOI NOI Oo+ NOI SNO
HoI SOI Oo+ NOI OoI Ho+ So+ OOI SOI HOI ONO
NOI NOI Oo+ NOI HoI So+ Oo+ ON+ HH+ No+ ONO
No+ Ho+ OO OOI OO SOI Ho+ SOI HOI OO ONO
unmanam
AmHImHO >H macho How “House HMQOHuomHHO HImVNx
So+ NH+ Oo+ Oo+ No+ oo OOI Oo+ Ho+ Ho+ NNO
NoI Oo+ HH+ So+ HH+ HOI Oo+ NH+ Oo+ OH+ NNO
OO Oo+ NOI OHI HOI Ho+ No+ Ho+ Ho+ OH+ HNO
OoI OHI Oo+ No+ Ho+ HH+ SOI OH+ HOI No+ ONO
No+ No+ Oo+ So+ No+ Oo+ Oo+ Oo+ OOI No+ ONO
Oo+ No+ OOI No+ No+ OO No+ Ho+ No+ HOI ONO
OO Ho+ OOI No+ OHI OHI OH+ OHI NOI OOI SNO
OoI SOI OOI OoI OOI OOI NOI OOI OOI OHI ONO
OoI So+ NOI Ho+ No+ NOI No+ NOI HOI OHI ONO
Oo+ No+ Oo+ OH+ OO HH+ Oo+ Oo+ HH+ Oo+ ONO
Ho+ No+ HOI OO No+ Ho+ So+ NOI SOI Oo+ NNO
uomflnam
AmmImHv HHH muonw How Anouum HMGOHHUOHHO Hlmva
OOIOO OOIHO OOIOO OOIHO OOION ONION ONIHN ONIOH OHIHH OHIO umHmHHB

 

.GODQHPGOUII.HIU NHm¢B

93

 

 

 

 

«0- «0- m0- Ho+ 00- «0+ 00- 00- 00+ «0I ««0
00 00+ «0- 00- 00- «0- 00- «0- «0+ Oo- HNO
50- 00- m0I O0- N0I 00 «0I 00- 00+ 00+ 0N0
Oo+ 00- NH+ Oo+ 00- HH+ OH+ 00 Oo+ HH+ 0H0
O0I 50- «0- 0HI O0- 00- 50- «0I Ho+ O0- 0H0
«0+ «0I H0- 50: Oo+ 00- O0- H0- H0+ 00+ 5H0
«HI 00- O0- «HI Ho+ Ho+ 0H- 00: 50: 00- OH0
00- «0+ NH+ O0- 50+ 00- 00+ 00 00+ O0- 0H0
OOI No+ OOI Ho+ OoI Oo+ Oo+ OOI No+ Oo+ OHO
00- 00- H0- «0+ 00- 00- 00- 00- Ho+ H0I 0H0
00- 00 00- Oo+ 00+ 0HI Ho+ Ho+ 50+ 0H+ «H0
pomwnam
Amqlmmv HH anHOHU HON ARCH-H0 HMSOHflOOH-wmu mldv mum
00+ Oo+ H0- 50+ HH+ 00- «H+ 00- H0I OoI HHO
«0- 0H- OHI O0I 50- 00- 0H- O0- OH- «0- 0H0
OHI 0H- OOI 0H- «0I 50I OHI Ho+ 00- H0I 000
H0- «HI 00 «0I H0- H0- O0I Ho+ 00+ 00+ O00
00 «0+ «HI Ho+ 00- 00+ «0I Ho+ 00+ «0+ 500
«0- 00- 00- 00 Oo+ m0I 00- «0I 00- «0+ 000
«0+ 0HI H0- O0+ 50+ Oo+ 50I Oo+ 00- 50+ 000
HHI Ho+ O0- O0- 00- O0+ «0+ mo- O0+ 00 000
0H+ 00 m0- «0- O0- 00 50+ «0- 00+ Ho+ 000
00+ O0- 50- 50+ H0I «0+ Ho+ 00 00- «0+ «00
00- 00+ 00+ «0+ O0I H0- 00+ 00+ 00- H0: H00
uoannam
LOO-OOO H @5000 How “00000 H020H0000Ho m-Ovmx
00-0m mm-Hm 0m-OO OOIHO 0O-00 00-O« ONIHN 0«-OH OHIHH 0H-O umHmHHB

 

.UOSGHMOOUII.HIO mHmfla

gamma-Erf; .13“ mi

94

 

 

 

 

 

OoI OOI NOI OOI OOI SOI OO SoI NOI Ho+ OOO
Ho+ HOI NOI HOI OoI OO NOI OO OOI HOI NOO
NOI NHI OHI NOI OH+ OOI SOI No+ OHI OOI NOO
OOI OOI No+ Oo+ Oo+ OO OoI No+ No+ Oo+ HOO
OHI OO OHI OOI OO Oo+ SOI OOI SOI NHI OOO
OO OHI Ho+ No+ OOI ONI HH+ OHI Ho+ NHI ONO
OO Oo+ So+ No+ Ho+ No+ Oo+ Oo+ Oo+ Oo+ ONO
NOI Oo+ OHI OHI Oo+ Oo+ OOI Ho+ NHI OH+ SNO
SOI NOI OOI OOI NH+ OO NOI So+ HOI OO. ONO
OOI OOI NOI HOI OoI OOI NOI NOI SOI So+ ONO
OOI No+ OOI No+ OHI Oo+ OOI Oo+ OO Oo+ ONO

pomhnam

AqumHV >H maouw How Auouuw HmcoHuomHHO mIvax

OoI NHI No+ No+ NOI OHI OoI HOI OOI NHI NNO
SOI ONI NHI NOI OOI OHI HNI SOI OHI OO NNO
OHI NHI No+ Oo+ NOI NOI No+ HOI OH+ OOI HNO
OOI SOI OOI Ho+ OOI OOI OOI SOI OOI NNI ONO
OH+ No+ So+ No+ Oo+ Oo+ NOI No+ No+ OOI ONO
OO OO OO NOI OO NOI NOI NOI Ho+ HOI ONO
OOI HHI So+ OHI NoI Oo+ NHI No+ NoI HOI SNO
No+ Oo+ OO Oo+ OOI OHI SOI Oo+ OO OH+ ONO
OHI OO SOI Oo+ No+ OHI SOI No+ Oo+ OOI ONO
NHI OOI OOI HoI Oo+ OOI OO OHI OOI OO ONO
OOI OOI OOI OHI HOI OOI HOI NOI OoI NOI NNO

nomnnam

AmmImHv HHH msouw now Auouuo HmnoHuomHHp mIvax
OOIOO OOIHO OOIOO OOIHO OOION ONION ONIHN ONIOH OHIHH OHIO uchHHB

 

.omsaHucoo-I.H-o sends

LIS T OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, Gary L. Effects of eye dominance on baseball
hitting. Research Quarterly. 36:3-9, 1965.

 

Banister, H. A study of eye dominance. British Journal
of Psychology. 26:34-42, 1935.

 

 

Barnsley, Roger H. and Rabinovitch, M. Sam. Handedness:
Proficiency versus stated preference. Perceptual
and Motor Skills. 30:3430362, 1970.

 

 

Barsley, Michael. The Left—Handed Book. London:
Souvenir Press, Ltd., 1966.

 

Bartee, Horace H. An investigation of simple reaction
time and movement time of the dominant and non-
dominant arm of elementary school children.
Unpublished Master's thesis, North Texas State
University, Denton, 1971.

Baughman, Larry G. Two methods of determining the effects
of sighting dominance on baseball hitting. Unpub-
lished Master's thesis, University of Maryland,
College Park, 1968.

Blau, Abraham. The Master Hand. American OrthOpsychiatric
Association, Research Monograph No. 5, 1946.

 

Brain, W. R. Speech and handedness. Lancet. 249:837-
841, 1945.

Burge, Ivor E. Some aspects of handedness in primary
school children. British Journal of Educational
Psychology. 22:45—51, 1952.

Burke, Nelda J. Selected motor activities and the develop—
ment of laterality in first graders. Unpublished
Master's thesis, University of Texas, Austin, 1969.

Buxton, E. E. and Crosland, H. R. The concept of eye
preference. American Journal of Psychology.
49:458-461, 1937.

 

95

96

Clark, Margaret M. Lgft Handedness. London: University
of London Press, 1957.

 

Collins, E. H. The concept of relative limb dominance.
Human Biology. 33:293—318, 1961.

 

Cooke, John P., Jr. The relationship of lateral dominance
to the learning of a complex motor skill. Unpub-
1ished Master's thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, 1969.

Cratty, Bryant J. and Williams, Harriett G. The veering
tendency of the arm, when drawing a straight line
without vision. . Research Quarterly. 39:932-936,
1968.

 

Crider, Blake. A battery of tests for the dominant eye.
Journal of General Psychology. 31:179-190, 1944.

Crovitz, Herbert F. and Zener, Karl. A group test for
assessing hand and eye dominance. American
Journal of ngchology. 75:270—276, 1965.

 

Cuff, Noel B. A study of eyedness and handedness. Journal
of Experimental Psychology. 14:164-175, 1931.

Dimond, Stuart J. A reappraisal of the concept of cerebral
dominance. Journal of Motor Behavior. 3:57—61,
1971.

 

Dolman, P. Tests for determining the sighting eye.
American Journal of Ophthalmology. 2:867—868,
1919.

Downey, J. E. Laterality of function. Psychological
Bulletin. 30:109-142, 1933.

 

 

Durand, A. C. and Gould, G. M. A method of determining
ocular dominance. Journal of the American Medical
Association. 55:369—370, 1910.

Fox, Margaret G. Lateral dominance in the teaching of
bowling. Research Quarterly. 28:327-331, 1957.

 

Frahm, Arlene M. Comparison between lateral dominance
and cross dominance in learning the hook delivery
in bowling. Unpublished Master's thesis, Washing“
ton State University, Pullman, 1967.

Garrison, Roberta A. The study of the relationship between
certain traits of laterality and the take—off foot
in selected skills of locomotion. Unpublished
Master's thesis, Texas State University for Women,
Denton, 1969.

Gesell,

97

A. and Ames, L. B. The develOpment of handed—
ness. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 70:155—175,
1947.

 

Graybiel, A., Jokl, E., and Trapp- C. Russian studies of

vision in relation to physical activity and sports.
Research Quarterly. 26:480-487, 1955.

 

Greenburg, George. Eye dominance and head tilt. American

 

Journal of Psychology. 73:149-151, 1960.

 

Henry, Franklin M. and Smith, Leon E. Simultaneous versus

separate bilateral muscular contractions in rela-
tion to neural overflow theory and neuromotor
specificity. Research Quarterly. 32:42-49, 1961.

 

Hildreth, Gertrude. The development and training of hand

dominance; I. Characteristics of handedness.
Journal of Genetic Psychology. 75:197-220, 1949.

 

. The development and training of hand dominance:

 

II. Developmental tendencies in handedness.
Journal of Genetic Psychology. 75:221-254, 1949.

 

. The development and training of hand dominance:

 

III. Origin of handedness and lateral dominance.
Journal of Genetic Psychology. 75:255—275, 1949.

 

. The development and training of hand dominance:

 

IV. Developmental problems associated with handedo
ness. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 76:39—100,
1950.

 

. The development and training of hand dominance:

 

Horine,

V. Training of handedness. ‘Journal of Genetic
Psychology. 76:101—144, 1950.

 

 

Lawrence E. An investigation of the relationship
of laterality groups to performance on selected
motor ability tests. Research Quarterly. 39:90~
95, 1968.

 

Hull, C. J. A study of laterality test items. Journal

Irwin,

of Experimental Education. 4:287-290, 1936.

 

L. W. A study of the relationship of dominance
to the performance of physical education activi-
ties. Research Quarterly. 9:96-1l9, 1938.

 

Jackson, John. Ambidexterity. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,

 

Trubner, and Co., Ltd., 1905.

98

Jasper, J. H. and Raney, E. T. The phi test of lateral
dominance. AmeriCan Journal of Psychology. 49:
450-475, 1937.

 

Johnson, B. J. Practice effects in a target test and a
comparative study of groups varying in intelli-
gence. Psychology Review. 26:300-316, 1919.

 

Karpinos, B. D. and Grossman, H. A. Prevalence of left-
handedness among selective service registrants.
Human Biology. 25:36-49, 1953.

 

Kisler, Geraldine L. The determining laterality factor
for differences in performance on a gross motor
ability task. Unpublished Master's thesis,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1971.

Lambert, P. Practice effect of non-dominant versus domi-
nant musculature in acquiring two-handed skill.
Research Quarterly. 22:50-57, 1951.

 

Lotter, W. S. Interrelationships among reaction times
and speeds of movement in different limbs.
Research Quarterly. 31:147-155, 1960.

 

Malina, Robert M. Reliability of different methods of
scoring throwing accuracy. Research Quarterly.
39:149-160, 1968.

 

Miles, W. L. Ocular dominance demonstrated by unconscious
sighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
12:113-126, 1929.

 

Moffett, Donovan C. A study of accuracy of direction in
motor skills at different distances as determined
by the relative size of the angle of error.
Research Quarterly. 13:466-480, 1942.

 

Norrie, Mary L. Effects of unequal distances and handed~
ness on timing patterns for simultaneous movements
of arms and legs. Research ggarterly. 38:241v
245, 1967.

 

Ojemann, R. A. Studies in handedness; I. A technique for
testing unimanual handedness. ‘Journal of Educa—
tional Psychology. 21:497-611, 1930.

 

 

Oxendine, Joseph B. Psycholggy of Motor Learning. New
York: AppletonJCentury-CrOIts, 1968.

 

Palmer, Robert D. Development of a differentiated handed-
ness. Psycholggical Bulletin. 62:257-272, 1964.

99

Parson, B. S. Lefthandedness. New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1924.

 

Phillips, Marjorie and Summers, Dean. Relation of
kinesthetic perception to motor learning.
Research Quarterly. 25:456-469, 1954.

 

Poindexter, M. C. Unilateral and crossed—lateral eye“
hand dominance and performance on a perceptual
motor task. Unpublished Master's thesis,
University of California, Berkley, 1965.

Provins, K. A. Handedness and skill. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology. 8:79S95, 1956.

 

 

Putman, Mary L. Bilateral transfer as a function of the
degree of first-hand practice and the direction
of transfer. Unpublished Master's thesis, Univer-
sity of Maryland, College Park, 1971.

Rife, D. C. Heredity and handedness. Scientific Monthly.
73:188-191, 1951.

 

Robinson, Edwin N. A comparison of laterally dominant to
crossed dominant individuals in tests of reaction
time and hand-eye coordination. Unpublished
Master's thesis, University of California, Santa
Barbara, 1965.

Roth, Charles. Hand-eye dominance as a factor in motor
ability. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New
York University, 1942.

Shick, Jacqueline. Relationship between depth perception
and hand-eye dominance and free—throw shooting in
college women. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 33:
539—542, 1971.

 

Sinclair, Caroline B. and Smith, Inez M. Laterality in
swimming and its relationship to dominance of hand,
eye, and foot. Research Quarterly. 28:395-400,
1957.

 

Staples, Lionel. A comparison of the effects of binocular
vision and monocular vision on accuracy in basket-
ball shooting. Unpublished Master's thesis,
Springfield College, Springfield, 1971.

Thomas, Earnestine. Teaching for ambidexterity and uni—
1aterality in basketball skills for fifth.grade
students. Unpublished Master's thesis, Texas
Women's University, Denton, 1969.

100

Trembly, Dean. Crossed dominance of hand and eye in rela-
tion to poliomyelitis. Perceptual and Motor
Skills. 26:231-234, 1968.

Tuttle, W. W. and Travis, L. E. The relation of precedence
of movement in homologous structures to handedness.
(Iowa Supp.) Research Quarterly. 6:3-14, 1935.

 

Tyler, Robert W. Lateral dominance as a factor in learning
selected motor skills. Journal of Motor Behavior.
3:253-258, 1971.

Uhrbrock, R. S. Laterality of champion athletes. Journal
of Motor Behavior. 2:285—291- 1970.

 

Van Riper. A new test of laterality. Journal of Experi-
mental Psyghology. 17:305-313, 1934.

Vogel, O. H. The relationship of dominance to acts of
skill. (Iowa Supp.) Research Quarterly. 6:15-
18, 1935.

 

Washburn, M. F., Faison, C., and Scott, R. A comparison
between the Miles A-B—C method and retinal-rivalry
tests of ocular dominance. American Journal of
Psychology. 46:636, 1934.

 

 

Way, Eunice. Relationships of lateral dominance to scores
of motor ability and selected skill tests. Research
Quarterly. 29:360-369, 1958.

 

Whiting, H. T. A. and Eastwood, P. Handedness and accuracy
of throwing with age. Physical Education Associa-
tion of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Research in Physical Education. Vol. 1, No. 4,
1969.

Wile, I. S. Handedness. Right and Left. Boston: Lothrop,
Lee and Shepard Co., 1934.

Wishner, J. and Shipley, T., Jr. Direction of autoninetic
movement as a test of the "sensory-tonic—field"
theory of perception. Journal of Personality.
23:99-106, 1954. ‘

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVE SITY LIBRARIES

3145 3586

R

I III III

3 1293