Cognitive Processing

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 441–446 | Cite as

Categorical and coordinate spatial task performance in inconsistent-handers versus consistent-right-handers: part II

  • Ruth E. PropperEmail author
  • Andrew Wolfarth
  • Tad T. Brunye
  • Christophe Carlei
  • Sophia Lall
Research Article


A previous study reported superior categorical and coordinate spatial task performance in inconsistent-versus consistent-right-handers (ICH versus CRH). Propper et al. used a three-dimensional (3D) computer-based task wherein individuals navigated to 21 locations within a realistic cityscape. During testing, participants were queried on their categorical and coordinate spatial knowledge of the map. In that study, the categorical and coordinate tasks may have inadvertently encouraged language coding of learned spatial information, potentially confounding spatial processing with recall ability for language-based information. Also, that study used a between-subjects design, which precludes examination of relationships between spatial knowledge as a function of handedness. The present study duplicated the learning task in Propper et al. using test stimuli that more faithfully represent spatial, and not language-based, information, as well as a within-subjects design. Results did not significantly replicate the previous study. Possible reasons for this finding are discussed.


Spatial processing Handedness Categorical Coordinate 



This study was not funded.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Baumann O, Chan E, Mattingley JB (2012) Distinct neural networks underlie encoding of categorical versus coordinate relations during active navigation. Neuroimage 60:1630–1637. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Brockmyer JH, Fox CM, Curtiss KA, McBroom E, Burkhart KM, Pidruzny JN (2009) The development of the game engagement questionnaire: a measure of engagement in video game-playing. J Exp Soc Psychol 45:624–634. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunye TT, Gardony A, Mahoney CR, Taylor HA (2012) Going to town: visualized perspectives and navigation through virtual environments. Comput Hum Behav 28:257–266. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnett SA, Lane DM, Dratt LM (1982) Spatial ability and handedness. Intelligence 6:57–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christman SD, Prichard EC, Corser R (2015) Factor analysis of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: inconsistent handedness yields a two-factor solution. Brain Cogn 98:82–86. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Edlin JM, Leppanen ML, Fain RJ, Hackländer RP, Hanaver-Torrez SD, Lyle KB (2015) On the use (and misuse?) of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Brain Cogn 94:44–51. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gardony AL, Taylor HA, Brunyé TT (2016) Gardony Map Drawing Analyzer: software for quantitative analysis of sketch maps. Behav Res Methods 48(1):151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hegarty M, Richardson AE, Montello DR, Lovelace K, Subbiah I (2002) Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence 30:425–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hellige JB (2001) Hemispheric asymmetry: what’s right and what’s left, vol 6. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Laeng B, Chabris CF, Kossyln SM (2003) Asymmetries in encoding spatial relations. In: Hugdahl K, Davidson RJ (eds) The asymmetrical brain. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 303–339Google Scholar
  11. Niebauer CL (2001) A possible connection between categorical and coordinate spatial relation representations. Brain Cogn 47:434–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pashler HP, Wagenmakers E-J (2012) Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: a crisis of confidence? Perspect Psychol Sci 6:528–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Prichard E, Propper RE, Christman, SD (2013) Degree of handedness, but not direction, is a systematic predictor of cognitive performance. Front Cogn 4, Article 9.
  15. Propper RE, Wolfarth A, Carlei C, Brunye TT, Christman SD (2018) Superior categorical and coordinate spatial task performance in inconsistent-handers relative to consistent-right-handers. Laterality 24(3):274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Slotnick SD, Moo LR, Tesoro MA, Hart J (2001) Hemispheric asymmetry in categorical versus coordinate visuospatial processing revealed by temporary cortical deactivation. J Cogn Neurosci 13:1088–1096. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Tian L, Wang J, Yan C, He Y (2011) Hemisphere- and gender-related differences in small-world brain networks: a resting-state functional MRI study. Neuroimage 54:191–202. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentMontclair State UniversityMontclairUSA
  2. 2.Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  3. 3.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations