Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

HANDEDNESS AND CONTROLLED MOVEMENT

FLOWERS, KENNETH·1975·British Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Subjects classified according to degree of hand preference were tested with both hands on two tasks of controlled movement. Strongly lateralized subjects (both left‐ and right‐handers) showed greater skill with their better hand than ambilaterals on a visually controlled aiming test (faster speed and equal errors), but there were no marked differences between groups with the other hand. Between‐hand differences were also greater in lateralized subjects. On a ballistic rhythmical tapping test, no marked differences in speed were found, but ambilaterals made slightly fewer errors with the better hand. It is argued (i) that for ballistic movements the hands are equipotential, and skill is a direct function of practice, (ii) that the essential dexterity difference between the preferred and non‐preferred hands is in the sensory or feedback control of movements rather than in motor function per se , and (iii) ambilaterals, especially those with very mixed preferences, have virtually two non‐preferred hands in continuously controlled movement tasks, and may therefore rely on ballistic movements more than do pronounced sinistrals and dextrals.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01438.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
FLOWERS, K.
Venue
British Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1975-02
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
39-52
ISSN
  • 0007-1269 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8295
OpenAlex
W2005640781
Cited by
281
References
0
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: HANDEDNESS AND CONTROLLED MOVEMENT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01438.x
The paper
FLOWERS, K. (1975). HANDEDNESS AND CONTROLLED MOVEMENT. British Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01438.x

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.