The DOI matches its Crossref record; 176 of the 176 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human handedness: A meta-analysis.
Open accessAbstract
Across time and place, right hand preference has been the norm, but what is the precise prevalence of left- and right-handedness? Frequency of left-handedness has shaped and underpinned different fields of research, from cognitive neuroscience to human evolution, but reliable distributional estimates are still lacking. While hundreds of empirical studies have assessed handedness, a large-scale, comprehensive review of the prevalence of handedness and the factors that moderate it, is currently missing. Here, we report 5 meta-analyses on hand preference for different manual tasks and show that left-handedness prevalence lies between 9.3% (using the most stringent criterion of left-handedness) to 18.1% (using the most lenient criterion of nonright-handedness), with the best overall estimate being 10.6% (10.4% when excluding studies assessing elite athletes' handedness). Handedness variability depends on (a) study characteristics, namely year of publication and ways to measure and classify handedness, and (b) participant characteristics, namely sex and ancestry. Our analysis identifies the role of moderators that require taking into account in future studies on handedness and hemispheric asymmetries. We argue that the same evolutionary mechanisms should apply across geographical regions to maintain the roughly 1:10 ratio, while cultural factors, such as pressure against left-hand use, moderate the magnitude of the prevalence of left-handedness. Although handedness appears as a straightforward trait, there is no universal agreement on how to assess it. Therefore, we urge researchers to fully report study and participant characteristics as well as the detailed procedure by which handedness was assessed and make raw data publicly available. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory
Oldfield, R. C. (1971) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 · Cited by 35,900
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515 · cited 7×
“66 Papadatou-Pastou, M., Martin, M., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Measuring hand preference: A comparison among different response formats using a selected sample, Laterality, 18(1), 68-107.”
MethodInfluentialA Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
A CLASSIFICATION OF HAND PREFERENCE BY ASSOCIATION ANALYSIS
ANNETT, M. (1970) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1970.tb01248.x · Cited by 2,283
Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans
Knecht, S. (2000) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/123.12.2512 · Cited by 1,546
Left, right, hand and brain : the right shift theory
Annett, M. (1985) · Lawrence Erlbaum Associates eBooks · Cited by 1,242
survival with an asymmetrical brain: advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateralization
vallortigara, G., & rogers, L. J. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000105 · Cited by 1,136
Cited by
Exome-wide analysis implicates rare protein-altering variants in human handedness
Schijven, D., Soheili-Nezhad, S., Fisher, S. E., & Francks, C. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46277-w · Cited by 27
Pediatric Co-Norms for Finger Tapping, Grip Strength, and Grooved Pegboard in a Community Sample
Wilcox, G., & Nordstokke, D. (2022) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617721000175 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Papadatou-Pastou, M., Ntolka, E., Schmitz, J., Martin, M., Munafò, M. R., Ocklenburg, S., & Paracchini, S.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 481-524
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W3014403984
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 176
- FWCI
- 30.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human handedness: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/bul0000229
- The paper
- Papadatou-Pastou, M., Ntolka, E., Schmitz, J., Martin, M., Munafò, M. R., Ocklenburg, S., & Paracchini, S. (2020). Human handedness: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000229
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.