↓ Skip to main content

The origin of human handedness and its role in pre-birth motor control

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The origin of human handedness and its role in pre-birth motor control
Published in
Scientific Reports, December 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-16827-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valentina Parma, Romain Brasselet, Stefania Zoia, Maria Bulgheroni, Umberto Castiello

Abstract

The vast majority of humans are right-handed, but how and when this bias emerges during human ontogenesis is still unclear. We propose an approach that explains postnatal handedness starting from 18 gestational weeks using a kinematic analysis of different fetal arm movements recorded during ultrasonography. Based on the hand dominance reported postnatally at age 9, the fetuses were classified as right-handed (86%) or left-handed, in line with population data. We revealed that both right-handed and left-handed fetuses were faster to reach to targets requiring greater precision (i.e., eye and mouth), with their dominant (vs. non-dominant) hand. By using either movement times or deceleration estimates, handedness can be inferred with a classification accuracy ranging from 89 to 100% from gestational week 18. The reliability of this inference hints to the yet unexplored potential of standard ultrasonography to advance our understanding of prenatal life.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 23%
Researcher 6 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Psychology 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 171. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2019.
All research outputs
#98,101
of 14,723,618 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#1,259
of 76,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,547
of 401,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#209
of 13,233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,723,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 76,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 401,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13,233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.