Advertisement

Vorschlag einer Differenzierungssystematik „Händigkeitstypus mit Varianten“ zur Analyse von wechselndem Handgebrauch

  • Elke KrausEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Ermittelt man die Händigkeit umfassend in ihren Dimensionen und Parametern aufgrund vielseitiger Daten und Informationen, ergibt sich die Frage, welche Schlussfolgerung man daraus ziehen kann. Die zahlreichen Studienergebnisse weisen darauf hin, dass wechselnder Handgebrauch unterschiedliche Ursachen haben kann. So entstand eine Systematisierung in Form von drei Händigkeitstypen mit jeweils einem Ursprungsschwerpunkt. Der Händigkeitstypus „Ausprägung“ bezieht sich auf die veranlagten Stärke der Händigkeit (Varianten variable Links- und Rechtshändigkeit, Ambidextrie und entwicklungsverzögerte Händigkeit). Dem Händigkeitstypus „Motorik“ liegt eine motorische Störung der dominanten Hand zugrunde (Varianten pathologische Links- und Rechtshändigkeit)welches zu einer Händigkeitsumbildung führen kann. Der Händigkeitstypus „Umwelt“ geht davon aus, dass der Umwelteinfluss die dominante Hand vor allem zum Schreiben auf die nicht-dominante Hand schult (Varianten umgeschulte Links- und Rechtshänder). Diese Händigkeitstypen werden definiert und erläutert.

Literatur

  1. Annett, M. (1978). Genetic and nongenetic influences on handedness. Behavioural Genetics 8(3).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01072826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annett, M. (1985). Left, right, hand and brain: the right-shift theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Annett, M. (1994). Handedness as a continuous variable with dextral shift: sex, generation, and family handedness in subgroups of left- and right-handers. Behavioural Genetics 24, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annett, M. (2002). Handedness and brain asymmetry: The right shift theory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Annett, M. (2004). Hand preference observed in large healthy samples. Classification, norms and interpretations of increased non-right-handedness by the right shift theory. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953) 95(Pt3), 339–353.Google Scholar
  6. Arning, L., Ocklenburg, S., Schulz, S., Ness, V., Gerding, W. M., Hengstler, J. G., et al. C. (2013). PCSK6 VNTR Polymorphism is associated with degree of handedness but not direction of handedness. Public Library of Science one PLoS 1 8(6), e67251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arning, L., Ocklenburg, S., Schulz, S., Ness, V., Gerding, W. M., Hengstler, J. G., et al. (2015). Handedness and the X chromosome: The role of androgen receptor CAG-repeat length. Scientific Report, 5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08325.
  8. Babik, I. (2014). Development of handedness for role-differentiated bimanual manipulation of objects in relation to the development of hand-use preferences for acquisition. [Dissertation]. Greensboro: The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.Google Scholar
  9. Bakan, P., Dibb, G., & Reed, P. (1973). Handedness and birth stress. Neuropsychologia 11(3),363–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bishop, D. V. M. (1990). Handedness and developmental disorders. Oxford: Mac Keith Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bryden, P. J., Roy, E. A., Rohr, L. E., & Egilo, S. (2007). Task demands affect manual asymmetries in pegboard performance. Laterality 12, 364–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlier, M., Doyen, A. L., & Lamard, C. (2006). Midline crossing: developmental trend from 3 to 10 years of age in a preferential card-reaching task. Brain and Cognition 61(3),255–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cermak, S. A., & Ayres, A. J. (1984). Crossing the body midline in learning – disabled and normal children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 38, 35–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corbetta, D., & Thelen, E. (2002). Behavioral fluctuations and the development of manual asymmetries in infancy: contributions of the dynamic systems approach. Handbook Neuropsychology 8, 311–330.Google Scholar
  15. Coren, S., & Searleman, A. (1990). Birth stress and left-handedness: The Rare Trait Marker Model. In: S. Coren (Ed.), Lefthandeness: Behavioural implications and anomalies (pp. 3–32). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Dahmen, R., & Fagard, J. (2005). The effect of explicit cultural bias on lateral preferences in Tunisia. Cortex 41(6),805–815.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Agostini, M., Khamis, A. H., Ahui, A. M., & Dellatolas, G. (1997): Environmental influences in hand preference. An African point of view. Brain and Cognition 35(2),151–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Moura, D. R., Costa, J. C., Santos, I. S., Barros, A. J., Matijasevich, A., Halpern, R., et al. (2010). Risk factors for suspected developmental delay at age 2 years in a Brazilian birth cohort. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 24(3),211–221.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Arbeitsmedizin und Umweltmedizin (DGAUM). (2014). Leitlinie: Händigkeit – Bedeutung und Untersuchung. Registernummer 002-017. Klassifikation S1. Stand: 21. 11.2014, gültig bis 20. 11.2019. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/002-017.html. Zugegriffen: 09. Juni 2018.
  20. Domellöf, E., Ronnqvist, L., Titran, M., Esseily, R., & Fagard, J. (2009). Atypical functional lateralization in children with fetal alcohol syndrome. Developmental Psychobiology 51(8),696–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Domellöf, E., Johansson, A. M., & Ronnqvist, L. (2011). Handedness in preterm born children. A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Neuropschologia 49(9),2299–2310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eason, B. L., & Surburg, P. R. (1993). Effects of midline crossing on reaction time and movement time with adolescents classified as mildly mentally retarded. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 10(3),269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elneel, F. H., Carter, F., Tang, B., & Cuschieri, A. (2008). Extent of innate dexterity and ambidexterity across handedness and gender: Implications for training in laparoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy 22(1),31–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Galobardes, B., Bernstein, M. S., & Morabia, A. (1999). The association between switching hand preference and the declining prevalence of left-handedness with age. American Public Health Association 89(12),1873–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gruber, R. (2016). Making it right? Social norms, hand writing and cognitive skills. [Paper]. In: Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2016: Demographischer Wandel. Augsburg 04.–07.09.2016.Google Scholar
  26. Hatta, T., & Kawakami, A. (1995). Patterns of handedness in modern Japanese: a cohort effect shown by re-administration of the H.N. Handedness Inventory after 20 years. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 49(4),505–512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hepper, P. G., Wells, D. L., & Lynch, C. (2005). Prenatal thumb sucking is related to postnatal handedness. Neuropsychologia 43(3),313–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill, E. L., & Khanem, F. (2009). The development of hand preference in children: the effect of task demands and links with manual dexterity. Brain and Cognition 71(2),99–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hildreth, G. (1949a). The development and training of hand dominance: Characteristics of handedness (Part 1). Journal of Genetic Psychology 75(2),197–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hildreth, G. (1949b). The development and training of hand dominance; developmental tendencies in handedness (Part 2). Journal of Genetic Psychology 75(2),221–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ida, Y., & Bryden, M. P. (1996). A comparison of hand preference in Japan and Canada. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 50, 234–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ida, Y., & Mandal, M. (2003). Cultural difference in side bias: Evidence from Japan and India. Laterality 8(2),121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jain, K., Leitman, I. M., & Adusumilli, P. S. (2012). Left-handed surgeons. In: T. Dutta, M. K. Mandal, & S. Kumar (Eds.), Bias in human behavior (pp. 183–189). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Kim, H., Yi, S., Son, E., & Kim, J. (2001). Evidence for the pathological right-handedness hypothesis. Neurpsychologia 15, 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klöppel, S., Vongerichten, A., van Eimeren, T., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Siebner, H. R. (2007). Can left-handedness be switched? Insights from an early switch of handwriting. The Journal of Neuroscience 27(29),7847–7853.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klöppel, S., Mangin, J. F., Vongerichten, A., Frackowiak, R. S., & Siebner, H. R. (2010). Nurture versus nature: long-term impact of forced right-handedness on structure of pericentral cortex and basal ganglia. Journal of Neuroscience 30(9),3271–3275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Koeda, T., & Takeshita, K. (1988). Relationship between corrected handedness and dysgraphia. No To Hattatsu 20, 191–194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kraus, E. (2009). „Händigkeit bei Kindern Teil 2: Therapieansätze – Rückschulung als letztes Mittel der Wahl.“ ergopraxis 2(1), 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kraus, E. (2018). Theoretische Grundlagen zum Grundkurs des Händigkeitsprofils. [Nicht publiziert. Das Manual ist nur über eine Kursteilnahme erhältlich.] Berlin.Google Scholar
  40. Krombholz, H. (2005). Umschriebene Entwicklungsstörungen der motorischen Funktionen. Störungen im Kindes und Jugendalter – Grundlagen und Störungen im Entwicklungsverlauf. In: P. F. Schlottke, R. K. Silbereisen, S. Schneider, & G. Lauth (Hrsg.), Störungen im Kindes- und Jugendalter – Grundlagen und Störungen im Entwicklungsverlauf (S. 545–574). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  41. Kushner, H. I. (2013). Why are there (almost) no left-handers in China? Endeavour 37(2), 71–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liederman, J. (1983). Mechanisms underlying instability in the development of hand preference. In: G. Young, S. J. Segalowitz, C. M. Corter, & E. Trehub (Eds.), Manual specialization and the developing brain (pp. 71–90). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McManus, I. C., & Bryden, M. P. (1992). The genetics of handedness, cerebral dominance and lateralisation. In: I. Rupin, & S. J. Segalowitz (Eds.), Handbook of Neropsychology (Vol. 10). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  44. McManus, I. C., Sik, G., Cole, D. R., Mellon, A. F., Wong, J., & Kloss, J. (1988). The development of handedness in children. Developmental Psychology 6(3),257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McManus, I. C., Nicholls, M., & Vallortigara, G. (2010). The right hand and the left hand of history. Laterality 15(1–2), 1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McManus, I. C., Davison, A., & Armour, J. A. L. (2013). Multilocus genetic models of handedness closely resemble single-locus models in explaining family data and are compatible with genome-wide association studies. The Evolution of Human Handedness 12888, 48–58.Google Scholar
  47. Michel, G. F., & Harkins, D. A. (1987). Evidence for a maternal effect on infant hand-use preferences. Developmental Psychobiology 21, 535–541.Google Scholar
  48. Ocklenburg, S., Beste, C., & Arning, L. (2014). Handedness genetics: considering the phenotype. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 1300.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Orton, S. T., & Travis, L. E. (1929). Studies in stuttering: IV. Studies of action currents in stutterers. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 21, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perelle, I. B., & Ehrman, L. (1994). An international study of human handedness. The data. Behavior Genetics 24(3), 217–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Peters, M. (1990). Subclassification of non-pathological left-handers poses problems for theories of handedness. Neuropsychologia 28(3),279–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peters, M., & Murphy, K. (1992). Cluster analysis reveals at least three, and possibly five distinct handedness groups. Neuropsychologia 30(4),373–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Porac, C. (1996). Attempts to Switch the Writing Hand: Relationships to Age and Side of Hand Preference. Laterality 1(1),35–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Porac, C. (2009). Hand preference and skilled hand performance among individuals with successful rightward conversions of the writing hand. Laterality, 14(2), 105–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Porac, C., & Martin, W. L. B. (2007). A cross-cultural comparison of pressures to switch left-hand writing: Brazil versus Canada. Laterality 12(3),273–291.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Porac, C., & Searleman, A. (2002). The effects of hand preference side and hand preference switch history on measures of psychological and physical well-being and cognitive performance in a sample. Neurpsychologia 40(12),2074–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramadhania, M. K., Koomenb, I., Grobbeea, D.E., van Donselaarc, C. A., van Furth, A. M., & Uiterwaal. C. (2006). Increased occurrence of left-handedness after severe childhood bacterial meningitis: Support for the pathological left-handedness hypothesis. Neuropsychologia 44(12), 2526–2532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rett, A., Kohlmann, T., & Strauch, G. (1973). Linkshänder: Analyse einer Minderheit. Wien, München: Jugend und Volk.Google Scholar
  59. Rodrigues, P. C. (2010). Human handedness: typical and atypical development. In: T. Dutta, M.K. Mandal, & S. Kumar (Eds.), Bias in human behavior (pp.111–137). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  60. Sattler, J. B. (2000). Der umgeschulte Linkshänder oder Der Knoten im Gehirn (6. Aufl.). Donauwörth: Auer Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Satz, P. (1972). Pathological left-handedness: An explanatory model. Cortex 8(2),121–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Satz, P., Orsini, D. L., Saslow, E., & Henry, R. (1985). The pathological lefthandedness syndrome. Brain and Cognition 4, 27–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scharoun, S. M., & Bryden, P. J. (2014). Hand preference, performance abilities, and hand selection in children. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Searleman. A., & Porac, C. (2001). Lateral preference patterns as possible correlates of successfully switched left hand writing: data and a theory. Laterality 6(4), 303–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Searleman, A., Porac, C. (2003). Lateral preference profiles and right shift attempt histories of consistent and inconsistent left-handers. Brain and Cognition 52(2),175–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Siebner, H. R., Limmer, C., Peinemann, A., Drzezga, A., Bloem, B. R., Schwaiger, M., & Conrad, B. (2002). Long-term consequences of switching handedness: a positron emission tomography study on handwriting in "converted" left-handers. Journal of Neuroscience,22(7), 2816–2825.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Soper, H. V., & Satz, P. (1984). Pathological left-handedness and ambiguous handedness. A new explanatory model. Neuropschologia 22(4),511–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sovák, M. (1968). Pädagogische Probleme der Lateralität. Berlin: VEB Verlag Volk und Gesundheit.Google Scholar
  69. Surburg, P. R. (1999). Midline-crossing inhibition: An indicator of developmental delay. Laterality 4(4),333–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Teixeria, L. A., & Paroli, R. (2000). Lateral asymmetries in motor actions: Preference versus training. Motriz 6(1), 18.Google Scholar
  71. Travis, L. E., & Johnson, W. (1934). Stuttering and the concept of handedness. Psychological Review 41, 534–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Volman, M. J., Wijnroks, A., & Vermeer, A. (2002). Bimanual circle drawing in children with spastic hemiparesis: effect of coupling modes on the performance of the impaired and unimpaired arms. Acta Psychologica, 110(2–3), 339–356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walker, L., & Henneberg, M. (2007). Writing with the non-dominant hand: cross-handedness trainability in adult individuals. Laterality 12(2),121–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Woodard, R. J., & Surburg, P. R. (1999). Midline crossing behavior in children with learning disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 16(2),155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alice Salomon HochschuleBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations