Dual functional brain asymmetry refers to the notion that in most individuals the left cerebral hemisphere is specialized for language functions, whereas the right cerebral hemisphere is more important than the left for the perception, construction, and recall of stimuli that are difficult to verbalize. In the last twenty years there have been scattered reports of sex differences in degree of hemispheric specialization. This review provides a critical framework within which two related topics are discussed: Do meaningful sex differences in verbal or spatial cerebral lateralization exist? and, if so, Is the brain of one sex more symmetrically organized than the other? Data gathered on right-handed adults are examined from clinical studies of patients with unilateral brain lesions; from dichotic listening, tachistoscopic, and sensorimotor studies of functional asymmetries in non-brain-damaged subjects; from anatomical and electrophysiological investigations, as well as from the developmental literature. Retrospective and descriptive findings predominate over prospective and experimental methodologies. Nevertheless, there is an impressive accummulation of evidence suggesting that the male brain may be more asymmetrically organized than the female brain, both for verbal and nonverbal functions. These trends are rarely found in childhood but are often significant in the mature organism.

Sex differences in human brain asymmetry: a critical survey

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0140525X00047695

Primate handedness reconsidered

Human handedness, a marker for language lateralization in the brain, continues to attract great research interest. A widely reported but not universal finding is a greater male tendency toward left-handedness. Here the authors present a meta-analysis of k = 144 studies, totaling N = 1,787,629 participants, the results of which demonstrate that the sex difference is both significant and robust. The overall best estimate for the male to female odds ratio was 1.23 (95% confidence interval = 1.19, 1.27). The widespread observation of this sex difference is consistent with it being related to innate characteristics of sexual differentiation, and its observed magnitude places an important constraint on current theories of handedness. In addition, the size of the sex difference was significantly moderated by the way in which handedness was assessed (by writing hand or by other means), the location of testing, and the year of publication of the study, implicating additional influences on its development.

Sex Differences in Left-Handedness: A Meta-Analysis of 144 Studies.

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).

/pdf/human-handedness-a-meta-analysis-jsui9usmvq.pdf

Human handedness: A meta-analysis

Since prehistoric times, left-handed individuals have been ubiquitous in human populations, exhibiting geographical frequency variations. Evolutionary explanations have been proposed for the persistence of the handedness polymorphism. Left-handedness could be favoured by negative frequency-dependent selection. Data have suggested that left-handedness, as the rare hand preference, could represent an important strategic advantage in fighting interactions. However, the fact that left-handedness occurs at a low frequency indicates that some evolutionary costs could be associated with left-handedness. Overall, the evolutionary dynamics of this polymorphism are not fully understood. Here, we review the abundant literature available regarding the possible mechanisms and consequences of left-handedness. We point out that hand preference is heritable, and report how hand preference is influenced by genetic, hormonal, developmental and cultural factors. We review the available information on potential fitness costs and benefits acting as selective forces on the proportion of left-handers. Thus, evolutionary perspectives on the persistence of this polymorphism in humans are gathered for the first time, highlighting the necessity for an assessment of fitness differences between right- and left-handers.

/pdf/why-are-some-people-left-handed-an-evolutionary-perspective-4g9gr4wnr9.pdf

Why are some people left-handed? An evolutionary perspective

Handedness and birth risk.

Bakan has suggested that left-handedness is the result of left hemishperic pyramidal motor dysfunction following perinatal hypoxia. To a degree support for the validity of this hypothesis rests on Bakan's (1971, 1977a) findings that left-handed college students were more likely the progeny of birth orders designated as "high-risk" than right-handed students. Attempts by others to replicate Bakan's data have been unsuccessful. To achieve a more powerful test of this relationship than has been provided by any single study, the data from the five studies which have considered it were pooled and tested. The resulting correlation between birth order and handedness was near zero.

Correlation between handedness and birth order: compilation of five studies.

To the Editor.— In a note in theArchives(33:664, 1976), Leviton and Kilty presented data that they claim supported Bakan's 1.2 hypothesis that left-handedness results from left-hemispheric brain injury associated with perinatal factors. In this letter, we shall discuss critically this issue and Leviton and Kilty's contribution to it and present data that have a direct bearing on the validity of Bakan's hypothesis. In his original study, Bakan 1 found for male university students, that left-handedness is more likely to occur in the progeny of high-risk birth orders, ie, first and fourth (plus) born. In delineating the rationale for their research, Leviton and Kilty have, correctly, called attention to the fact that the studies 3.4 that have failed to replicate Bakan 1 were inadequately conceived because they both failed to consider sex as a separate variable. In their study, Leviton and Kilty measured the relationship between the birth order

Elizabeth A. Evans

Papers

Handedness and birth risk.

Correlation between handedness and birth order: compilation of five studies.

Birth Risk and Left-Handedness Reconsidered