The Relative Importance of Eye and Hand Dominance in a Pursuit Skill
Author(s): G. L. Freeman and J. S. Chapman
Source: The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Jan., 1935), pp. 146-149
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1416715
Accessed: 31-08-2023 16:44 +00:00
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The American Journal of Psychology
This content downloaded from 122.161.51.123 on Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:44:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
MINOR STUDIES FROM THE PSYCHOLOGICAL LABORATORY OF
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
VI. THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EYE AND HAND DOMINANCE
IN A PURSUIT SKILL
BY G. L. FREEMAN and J. S. CHAPMAN
It is well known that skills involving eye-hand coordination usually include the
use of the dominant hand. The role of eye dominance in such performance is not
so clearly understood. Lund,1 who investigated this problem in connection with dartthrowing, reported that the use of the dominant eye resulted in a better score than the
use of the non-dominant, and that both eyes used together gave the highest score.
Lund's procedure involved a moving hand and a fixed eye. Our problem was to
obtain comparable records in a test situation calling for a moving eye as well as a
moving hand. To this end we utiIized manuaI pursuit, testing performance of this
skill under conditions where dominant eye and hand were used both together and with
non-dominant parts.
A group pursuit test. In the course of preliminary investigations we were able
to develop a group pursuit test which seemed to possess advantages over the individual pursuitmeter techniques of Miles,2 Renshaw,3 and others. Consequently it
was used in our study. The test consisted, in essential, of tracing in ink upon cellophane the movement of a dot as seen in a mirror lying below the writing surface. As
shown in Fig. 1, a circle was drawn on the floor and the Ss seated about its circumferance. An ordinary projection lantern was arranged to throw images directly
upon the ceiling. The chairs were placed so that all the Ss saw these images (in
their mirrors) from the same angle. The details of the test are best discussed under
four headings.
(a) Control of stimulus moloement. The stimulus movement was provided in the
following manner. A piece of glass twice as long as the slide ordinarily used in the
projection machine was placed upon a horizontal carrier platform. The half which
lay over the lens had a vertical reference line, the half not exposed had a series of
horizontal lines arranged in a zigzag fashion. A long narrow strip of glass carrying
two smalI black dots rested upon the double slide. E followed the pattern of horizontal lines with the right-hand dot, and as the glass strip zigzagged back and forth
from top to bottom the movement was duplicated upon the ceiling by the visible
left-hand dot. E controlled the rate of movement by counting.4
* Accepted for publication October 2, 1933.
1 F. H. Lund, The dependence of eye-hand coordinations upon eye dominance,
this JOURNAL, 44, 1932, 756-762.
2T. R. Miles, The Pursuitmeter, J. Exper. Psyrhol., 4, 1921, 77-105.
as. Renshaw, An experimental test of the serial character of a case of pursuit
learning, J. Gen. Psyrhol., 1, 1928, 520-533.
4 It is possible to control both the rate and the direction of movement by attaching the glass glider to machinery. An even simpler way of assuring uniformity in
successive presentations is to have a 'movie hlm' made of the pattern. Te found,
146
This content downloaded from 122.161.51.123 on Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:44:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EYE AND HAND DOMINANCE 147
(b) Rerording the responses. Since the Ss svere seated with their mirrors equidistant from the center of the circle, all obtained images of the stimulus movement which
were of similar size and direction. The mirrors were tilted at the same angle in order
to provide against differences in distortion. Sheets of cellophane were fastened over
the mirrors by means of rubber bands. The Ss closed one eye and traced with a fountain pen the vertical reference line as seen in their mirrors. At the signal "ready"
the head was brought into position so that the line drawn on the cellophane coincided with that seen in the mirror. The head was kept in this position until the
trial was completed.5 At the signal "get set" the point of the pen was placed over
FIG. 1
the image of the dot. At the signal "now" the dot started to move, and the Ss
to trace its course back and forth from top to bottom of the cellophane pages.
(a) Scoring of the test. The Ss' responses were scored from a single master key
determined empirically by slow-motion records taken on cellophane and transferred
to a sheet of millimeter-squared paper. Individual records were placed over this
key and the amount of error estimated in terms of the ratio of overshooting or undershooting (in mm.) to the total length of the correct sweeps.
however, that E could duplicate a pattern with suicient accuracy for our purposes
That part of the slide which carried the pattern was divided into equivalent sectors
by vertical lines and E checked upon his rate of movement by counting. For example, the first movement to the left was slow, with a count of 1-2 given to each
section traversed; the return was more rapid, with a count of only 1 given to
each sector.
sMovement of the head during a trial introduces a variable reference line and
makes scoring impossible. For more accurate work, a biting board or headrest should
be supplied.
This content downloaded from 122.161.51.123 on Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:44:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DoNomnS.dhhaoamn.dhwawiintdhnowidotnhSmd.omey.ey.e. . . . . . . . . . .I 6.I3.IS.690I1. 4S61Il 1I-.S65I;
FREEMAN AND CHAPMAN
148
(d) Reliability of the tat. In order to estimate the reliability of our pursuit test,
we had 2 groups of 20 Ss each repeat the performance on 10 different days, 8 trials
per day. Two trials were taken with the Ss in one position; then all were shifted to
other seats for 2 more trials. This was continued until at the end of the entire
experiment every S had been seated twice in every possible position in the circle.
The average rank-difference correlation between those daily trials in which the Ss
remained in the same chairs was +0.71 for Group I and +0.64 for Group II. The
highest correlation for Group I was +0.89 and for Group II +0.74. The lowest
correlation for Group I was +0.S0 and for Group II +0.S9. Correlations between
the performances of the same individuals in different seats averaged +0.7S for Group
I and +0.68 for Group II. Correlations between the performances of individuals
occupying the same seat at different times was +0.01S for Group I and 0.126 for
Group II. This result shows that individual differences are more important than is
seat position in determining the score. While we were unable to obtain a Miles
pursuitmeter for use in comparative tests, we built a simplified model which we
used with individuals in Group I. The correlation of these individual tests with
those taken the same day in a group was only +0.46, due possibly to the crudity
of our model.
The study of the relative importance of eye and hand dominance in pursuit included the performance of our group test under the following conditions, properly
counter-balanced as to practice order: (1) Dominant hand, dominant eye; (2) Dominant hand, non-dominant eye; ( 3 ) Non-dominant hand, dominant eye; and ( 4 )
Non-dominant hand, non-dominant eye. Tests were given on 2 days, 8 trials each
day. Forty college students served as Ss; 20 of whom (Group II above) had
received considerable practice in the test before the experiment began; the others
(Group III) were not familiar with the test. All the Ss were right-eyed, as tested by
the manoptometer,6 and all except one were right-handed.
Results. The combined results for all trials are shown, in the table below, in
terms of the percentage of error to the total length of the path traversed by the
moving dot. The lower the percentage score, the more accurate the pursuit.
TABLE I
SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE 0F ERROR MADE BY EACH GROUP AND BY ALL COMB
Percentage of error
Condition
Group II Group III A11
(practiced) (unpracticed) Combined
NonEdom. hand with nonSdom. eye ............................ I .64 I * 7z I .68
From these scores, it is evident that hand dominance plays a much more important r81e in pursuit skills than does eye dominance. On an average there is
0.12% less error for right-handed than for left-handed performance, independent of
the eye used; the difference in favor of the dominant eye is only 0.04%, when scores
sF. H. Lund, The manoptometer; a new device for measuring eye-dominance,
this JourvNAL, 44, 1932, 181.
This content downloaded from 122.161.51.123 on Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:44:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
PERIODICITY IN PERFORMANCE
149
are averaged independent of the hand used. This is considerably less than the work
of Lund would lead us to expect. It may be due either to the type of test used in our
experiment or to the fact that we had fewer cases than did Lund. With regard to
the reliability of our sample, however, we can report that correlations between two
similar trials range from +0.72 to +0.84. That both eye and hand dominance play a
more important rdle in the early stages of learning a skill than in later stages is indicated by a comparison of the scores of the practiced and unpracticed groups. This
suggests that the phenomena of dominance may be obscured in many tests, due to
transfer or cross-education.
VII. PERIODICITY IN PERFORMANCE
BY G. L. FREEMAN and E. F. WONDERLIC
The evidence for periodicity during continuous work is conflicting. Wheeler1
presents curves of consecutive blindfold maze tracing which show that a pronounced
break in performance occurred at regular intervals of approximately 40 trials. Bills2
found that "blocking" in continuous color naming, was noticeable about 3 times per
min. It has been suggested that such fluctuations as these act as automatic safeguards
to fatigue and that periodicity is determined either by the refractory periods of the
tissues activated or by "some basic metabolic law." Against such assertions may be
cited the work of Flugel,3 who found that periodic breaks in continuous addition
were due not to some internal condition, but to the distraction induced each minute
by the time signal. Ergographic experiments are frequently cited as showing periodic
rhythms, but the authors have found from consultation of published records that
more or less regular breaks are just as frequently absent as they are present. In
many instances periodicity has been assumed if the most pronounced deviations fall
within a rather wide interval of each other. Furthermore, the majority of per-
formances tested have been too complex to provide any crucial evidence. Since in
practically all reports the question of periodicity is incidental to some other problem, the authors have proceeded to study the precise relation between deviations in
work output and the time-interval between them.
Procedre. The experiment was designed and the apparatus planned so that only
one factor in work output would vary at a given time.4 We used a modiSed hnger
ergograph which could be arranged to limit the extent of Enger movement if desired.
S was seated comfortably, blindfolded, and his right arm strapped in the ergograph.
A time-mark was made on the record at 5-sec. intervals. In the Erst series of observations, rate of movement was the variable, the S being told to oscillate his finger as
rapidly as possible between two stationary stops for a period of 20 min. In the
R. H. Wheeler, The Science of Psychology, 1929, 306-307.
2A. G. Bills, Blocking; a new principle of mental fatigue, this JOURNAL, 43,
931, 230-245.
3J. C. Plugel, Practice, fatigue and oscillation, Brit. J. Psychol., Monog Spp.,
3, 1928, 1-92.
4 The writers express their appreciation to Miss Elitabeth Phillips and Mr.
Clarence G. Browne for assistance in this study.
This content downloaded from 122.161.51.123 on Thu, 31 Aug 2023 16:44:52 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms