It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Human lateral preferences, such as handedness and footedness, have interested researchers for decades due to their pronounced asymmetries at the population level. While there are good estimates on the prevalence of handedness in the population, there is no large-scale estimation on the prevalence of footedness. Furthermore, the relationship between footedness and handedness still remains elusive. Here, we conducted meta-analyses with four different classification systems for footedness on 145,135 individuals across 164 studies including new data from the ALSPAC cohort. The study aimed to determine a reliable point estimate of footedness, to study the association between footedness and handedness, and to investigate moderating factors influencing footedness. We showed that the prevalence of atypical footedness ranges between 12.10% using the most conservative criterion of left-footedness to 23.7% including all left- and mixed-footers as a single non-right category. As many as 60.1% of left-handers were left-footed whereas only 3.2% of right-handers were left-footed. Males were 4.1% more often non-right-footed compared to females. Individuals with psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders exhibited a higher prevalence of non-right-footedness. Furthermore, the presence of mixed-footedness was higher in children compared to adults and left-footedness was increased in athletes compared to the general population. Finally, we showed that footedness is only marginally influenced by cultural and social factors, which play a crucial role in the determination of handedness. Overall, this study provides new and useful reference data for laterality research. Furthermore, the data suggest that footedness is a valuable phenotype for the study of lateral motor biases, its underlying genetics and neurodevelopment.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Ruhr University Bochum, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Biopsychology, Department of Psychology, Bochum, Germany (GRID:grid.5570.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0490 981X)
2 University of St Andrews, School of Medicine, St Andrews, UK (GRID:grid.11914.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 0721 1626)
3 Bangor University, Perception, Action and Memory Research Group, School of Psychology, Bangor, UK (GRID:grid.7362.0) (ISNI:0000000118820937)
4 National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Education, Department of Primary Education, Athens, Greece (GRID:grid.5216.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 2155 0800)
5 Ruhr University Bochum, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Biopsychology, Department of Psychology, Bochum, Germany (GRID:grid.5570.7) (ISNI:0000 0004 0490 981X); University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Psychology, Essen, Germany (GRID:grid.5718.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2187 5445)