Search

We searched the existence of a link between the strength of pronation and supination of the dominant forearm and those of the non-dominant one. Ninety-seven volunteers were tested in pronation and supination with an analog dynamometer. Gender, age, dominance, height and weight were recorded. The measurement position was: 90° of elbow flexion, 0° of shoulder abduction, wrist slightly extended and neutral pronation-supination. We took four measurements per patient: strength in pronation and supination, in both the dominant and non-dominant sides. Fifteen subjects were evaluated twice. The left-handed (4) were removed from the statistical analysis. There were 38 men (37 years, 18-66) and 55 women (45 years, 21-71). Torques were higher (P<0.05) in men than in women, higher in supination than in pronation and in the dominant side compared to the non-dominant one (average ratio "non-dominant/dominant": 0.85; σ=0.16). There was a strong correlation between non-dominant hand strength and dominant hand strength (Pearson>0.6). Relating to the 15 subjects evaluated twice, the value of the forces varied during the day, but the ratio "non-dominant/dominant" was constant. The left-handed people were excluded, their values may be different from those of right-handers, as has been shown for grip strength. There was a strength variation during the day, but the ratio "non-dominant/dominant" was constant, making it more relevant intra-individual comparison (non-dominant side versus dominant side) rather inter-individual (based on charts of gender, age, weight and height). In the right-handed, the ratio "strength non-dominant side/dominant" is constant, defining easily in consultation the expected value of recovery of an injured forearm., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

We examined Goslin, Dixon, Fischer, Cangelosi, and Ellis's (Psychological Science 23:152-157, 2012) claim that the object-based correspondence effect (i.e., faster keypress responses when the orientation of an object's graspable part corresponds with the response location than when it does not) is the result of object-based attention (vision-action binding). In Experiment 1, participants determined the category of a centrally located object (kitchen utensil vs. tool), as in Goslin et al.'s study. The handle orientation (left vs. right) did or did not correspond with the response location (left vs. right). We found no correspondence effect on the response times (RTs) for either category. The effect was also not evident in the P1 and N1 components of the event-related potentials, which are thought to reflect the allocation of early visual attention. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2 for centrally located objects, even when the object was presented 45 times (33 more times than in Exp. 1). Critically, the correspondence effects on RTs, P1s, and N1s emerged only when the object was presented peripherally, so that the object handle was clearly located to the left or right of fixation. Experiment 3 provided further evidence that the effect was observed only for the base-centered objects, in which the handle was clearly positioned to the left or right of center. These findings contradict those of Goslin et al. and provide no evidence that an intended grasping action modulates visual attention. Instead, the findings support the spatial-coding account of the object-based correspondence effect.