This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychological Bulletin
1988, Vol. 103, No. 2, 179-192
Copyright 1988 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0033-2909/88/500.75
Footedness: Asymmetries in Foot Preference and Skill and
Neuropsychological Assessment of Foot Movement
Michael Peters
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
If footedness is defined in terms of a reliable role differentiation of the two feet and legs, righthanders show a right-foot bias for activities requiring fine manipulation and focused attention. In
adult right-handers, the left leg tends to be the longer and heavier one, in keeping with the support
role of that leg. In left-handers, anatomical asymmetries tend to be in the opposite direction, and
functional preferences are somewhat less clearly expressed. Foot biases and their interaction with
hand biases are of practical importance in the design of human-machine systems. The considerable
sensitivity of foot and leg performance to neurological insult rendere the assessment of foot and leg
use very attractive for purposes of clinical neuropsychology.
The unbridled enthusiasm for matters pertaining to lateral-
second, shorter part of the review deals with a quite different
ization in structure and function has led psychologists to ex-
aspect of footedness. When motor performance tests are con-
plore the left and right of phenomena ranging from ability in
sidered within the neuropsychological context, the focus is usu-
mathematics to crooked smiles. It comes as a surprise, therefore, that footedness as a basic phenomenon has been relatively
ally on hand performance. I argue that foot motor performance
tests should be a routine part of evaluation of motor perfor-
neglected. This neglect is not justified. From a practical point
mance in neuropsychological applications.
of view, any structural and functional biases in the lower extremities are of direct interest in the context of athletics, danc-
Laterality
ing, the use of some musical instruments, and the operation of
Structural Asymmetries
machines. From the perspective of laterality-of-function research, there is the question of how reliable or valid foot prefer-
Earlier sources on anatomical asymmetries were influenced
ence measures are. There certainly is no unanimity on this
point. Bryden(1982), for instance, questioned footedness as an
by the idea that dominance extends to the entire body half. Bell
(1870) claimed that in right-handed people the left side is the
indicator of lateral dominance, citing a study by Raczkowski,
weaker side and that shoemakers and tailors are aware that the
Kalat, and Nebes (1974), who challenged both the validity and
right side of the body requires larger measurements.
reliability of foot preference measures. In contrast, Porac and
More recently, von Bonin (1962) observed, "We are generally
Coren (1981) reported marked and reliable foot preference biases. Another important issue concerns the interaction of foot
right-handed and left-footed" (p. 1). His statement was largely
based on the X-ray studies by Ingelmark (1947), who measured
preference with hand preference. It is quite clear that in many
the leg and arm length of right- and left-handers and whose work
activities foot roles are determined by the role of the hands, as
remains the most comprehensive and carefully conducted study
in the stance taken when throwing a rock. In such situations,
on anatomical leg asymmetries to date. Ingelmark's results were
foot roles are complementary to hand roles. There may, how-
somewhat more complex than von Benin's summary suggests.
ever, also be foot preferences that do not relate in any simple
For all right-handed subjects between 6 and 20 years old, the
way to hand preferences. If such preferences are similar in kind
right arm was the longer one, and for all left-handed subjects
to hand preferences, it can be assumed that the lateral special-
between 6 and 20 years old, the left arm was the longer one.
ization seen in hand preference does not reside in the ma-
However, whereas 85% of right-handed subjects between 6 and
chinery that guides hand movement as such but at a higher level
13 years old had a longer right leg, 85% of right-handed subjects
(Peters, 1983) and can therefore express itself in lateral biases
between 14 and 20 years old had a longer left leg. Ingelmark
independent of a particular limb or class of movement.
This review consists of two somewhat unequal parts. First, I
reported that for left-handers the situation was reversed: the 6to 13-year-old gnjup had a longer left leg, whereas the 14- to 20-
discuss laterality in foot preference and foot performance. The
year-old group had a longer right leg. Ingelmark's results need
to be taken seriously because of his careful methods and large
number of subjects (150, of which 35 were left-handers). In-
This work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant A7054.
I am very grateful for the extensive and constructive criticism that
Lauren Harris provided for this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Peters, Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ontario NIG 2W1, Canada.
gelmark's data for adults is in harmony with Chibber and Singh's (1970) finding that in adults the left leg tends to be the
heavier one. Chibber and Singh (1972) reported that in human
fetuses the left lower limb is heavier than the right lower limb.
Ingelmark (1947), however, found no reliable asymmetries in a
sample of 71 fetuses at or close to full gestation age. This is in
179
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
180
MICHAEL PETERS
agreement with generally contradictory data on asymmetries
for infants and fetuses (L. J.Harris, 1983).
In view of the observations on adult samples, Levy and
Levy's (1978) report of an asymmetry in the size of human feet
comes as no surprise. An added element in the Levy and Levy
(1978) study was an interaction among foot length, sex, and
handedness. They interpreted this interaction in the context of
differences in developmental gradients, as a function of hormone action early in life. This speculation assumes renewed significance in view of the suggestion that lateralization is related
to hormonal factors during development (Geschwind & Galaburda, 1984).
Levy and Levy (1978) reported that whereas right-handed
girls had larger left than right feet, right-handed boys showed
an advantage of right-foot size. The opposite was the case for
left-handers. Subsequent work showed various degrees of support. Pomerantz and Harris (1980) provided partial support for
the Levy and Levy (1978) findings by showing that 15-year-old
boys had longer right than left feet. The only other significant
finding was that 11-year-old girls had longer right than left feet,
and this is contrary to the findings of Levy and Levy (1978).
Mascie-Taylor, MacLarnon, Lanigan, and McManus (1981),
Means and Walters (1982), Peters, Petrie, and Oddie (1981),
and Yanowitz, Satz, and Heilman (1981) found either contradictory patterns or no relation between sex, handedness, and
foot size. Orsini and Satz (1985), using a very large sample, were
unable to find any significant relation among sex, handedness,
and foot size. Orsini and Satz (1985) did report, "Most subjects
had a longer left foot" (p. 128), but continued to say that this
finding did not reach statistical significance, invalidating the
first statement. Mascie-Taylor et al., although not able to find
sex and handedness interactions with foot length, did indicate
greater length for the left foot. To further confuse the picture,
Means and Walters (1982) stated that there was a trend for
greater right-foot length in all their groups. In commenting on
the various articles by researchers attempting to replicate the
original finding of an interaction among foot length, sex, and
handedness, Levy and Levy (1981) pointed out that in their
original study foot length was measured while the subjects were
standing. Levy and Levy (1981) correctly stated that this in itself could be a major source of the contradictory findings. Orsini and Satz (1985), however, also measured foot length while
subjects were standing and could not confirm the Levy and
Levy (1978) findings. Another methodological difference is that
Levy and Levy (1978) measured from the big toe to the heel,
whereas Orsini and Satz and Peters et al. measured from the
longest toe to the heel.
A cautious interpretation of these findings is that foot length
asymmetry, however measured, does not reliably vary as a function of sex and handedness. A different measure of the foot, for
instance, one that considers the entire plantar surface, might
reveal a slight relation. The caution that is exercised here in
not dismissing the possibility of foot asymmetry outright stems
from anatomical observations favoring the left leg. Additional
information allows for anatomical foot asymmetries. For instance, Singh (1970) found that the left shoe of right- and lefthanded youths showed greater signs of wear than did the right
shoe. In the section on functional asymmetries, I suggest that
in right-handers at least, the left leg is often preferred for sup-
port and power functions. Thus, although an interaction between foot measures, sex, and handedness does not look very
convincing, the possibility of a small overall left-foot anatomical advantage (however defined) cannot be dismissed.
The question of asymmetries in foot size is relevant not only
in the narrower context of lateralization of function but also
with reference to neurology. Lesions to the frontoparietal cortex
of one hemisphere (Penfield & Jasper, 1954; Penfield & Robertson, 1943) can produce a reduction in contralateral limb size.
If there were systematic asymmetries in foot size in the normal
population, relatively small reductions would be difficult to
evaluate. However, in those studies in which researchers found
systematic differences among some groups, the actual differences in foot length were very small indeed.
In conclusion, the consensus is that in adult right-handers the
left leg is longer and heavier than the right leg. Whereas the right
arm in right-handers is longer than the left arm as early as age
6, the left leg only begins to outstrip the right leg in length in
the early teens. Because the asymmetry increases up to the age
of 20 (Ingelmark, 1947), it can be suggested that active foot use
plays a role in this trend. Ingelmark found no group differences
in the magnitude of length asymmetries between right- and lefthanders, except for 14-20-year-olds, in which left-handers had
smaller arm length asymmetries.
Functional Asymmetries: Foot Preference
The definition of foot preference. Is it meaningful to talk
about foot preference? Why not talk about leg preference?
These questions are best answered with reference to hand preference. In evaluating hand preference, for instance, with the
Oldfield (1971) questionnaire, none of the items refer exclusively to the use of the hand. Because the hand is unavoidably
attached to the arm, hand movements do not happen in isolation and cannot be separated from arm movements. From a
functional point of view, it would make little sense if the lateral
specialization in movement that is observed in the digits of the
hands was not also accompanied by a corresponding lateral specialization of the movements of the arm (Kimura & Davison,
1975). Nevertheless, some items, such as writing, place relatively more emphasis on hand and wrist movements than items
such as throwing. From a kinesthetic point of view, these classes
of movement are rather different. Hand preference, then, is not
exclusively defined by any particular class of movement but
rather by the preferential allocation of focal attention to one
hand and its contribution to the goal of movement. That attention is a very decisive factor can be shown by a paradigm in
which the focusing of attention on one or the other hand is manipulated while the movements are kept constant (Peters,
1985). An additional important dimension of hand preference
is role differentiation; the preferred hand realizes the goal of
the movement, and the nonpreferred hand lends support. The
differentiation of hand and arm roles is most salient in naturally
occurring and explicitly bimanual skilled activities, which form
the bulk of skilled human activities (Peters, 1981, 1983). This
view of hand preference, defined in terms of role differentiation,
is helpful in understanding footedness. If pure unimanual
movements are rare, it is even harder to conceive of purposeful
movements of one leg and foot in isolation from the other. After
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
FOOTEDNESS
181
all, whatever one does with one leg and foot is supported in
vated because all children in his sample had been taught to lead
some way by the movements of the other leg and foot.
off with the left foot. Because Haefner's scoring system did not
The definition that I adopt for footedness, then, emphasizes
allow a disentanglement of who did what with which foot, left-
the role differentiation of the feet. The foot (henceforth used in
handers ended up with more congruent scores than did right-
place of foot and leg) that is used to manipulate an object or to
lead out, as in jumping, is denned here as the preferredfoot. The
handers, indicating a relatively greater use of the left foot in lefthanders than right-foot use in right-handers. Because of the ease
foot that is used to support the activities of the preferred foot
of scoring and general relevance of kicking, more data are avail-
by lending postural and stabilizing support is defined as the
able for kicking than for any other measure. As will be seen,
nonpreferred foot. In the subsequent discussion, I show that a
although general trends can be discerned, the agreement in the
literature is by no means overwhelming.
definition in terms of role differentiation is in some cases not
satisfactory unless qualifications are made. An example is bal-
Kicking. In terms of the definition adopted above, kicking
ancing, in which head, arms, torso, and legs collaborate to
appears to be an ideal foot movement, and this is most likely
achieve postural stability. Which is the preferred leg here—the
why A. J. Harris (1958) included the subtest of kicking a bean
one used for postural support or the one used for dynamic
bag in his lateralizatipn inventory. In kicking a ball, the focus
counterbalancing? Nevertheless, the definition is of sufficient
of attention unquestionably rests on the foot that manipulates
usefulness to be adopted here.
the ball. Both fine manipulative skill in handling the ball and
The older literature. In the older literature, the "hand-foot
a more ballistic application of force can be observed, and this
theory," as Smith (1917) put it, seemed predominant. This the-
suggests that ball handling extends across different categories of
ory assumes a congruence of handedness and footedness. Bell
movement. The nonpreferred foot supports the movements of
(1870), for instance, was convinced that the right-hander is also
the preferred foot by providing postural support and a proper
a right-footer, a conviction shared by modern writers (Corballis,
body balance that is necessary for the preferred foot to operate.
1983; Delacato, 1963). But the failure to specify what sort of
Not unexpectedly, there is a population preference for kick-
movements would indicate right-footedness subsequently led to
ing with the right foot. Stern and Schilf (1932) studied the prev-
some confusion. Gould (1908) was struck by the observation
alence of right-footedness in 7,000 schoolchildren. They re-
that soldiers tend to march with the left foot. By that, he meant
ported that it is more common to observe right-footedness
that soldiers lead out with the left foot when marching. This
among left-handers than it is to observe left-footedness among
observation was also made by Stern and Schilf (1932), who
right-handers. In support, they stated that in a school with 300
stated, "Why it is that the army begins to march with the left
children, none of the 15 left-handers were left-footers. Stern and
foot, or why the about-turn is always done to the left we have not
Schilf also remarked, with some consternation, that there were
been able to find out, in spite of queries in all sorts of places" (p.
42, translated by Peters). Perhaps the habit is related to what
marked and inexplicable fluctuations in the prevalence of leftfooters for kicking between schools. For example, in one school
the arms do. In formal marching, the gun rests against the left
with 435 children, there were 6.2% left-footers, whereas in an-
shoulder, and the right arm is free to move in concert with the
other with 368 children, only 0.5% were left-footers. The dis-
left leg. In bygone days, the shield was carried on the left, and
crepancy could be accounted for if in the latter school left-
in that case it would also make sense if it was the right arm (with
footed kicking was actively discouraged.
or without weapon) that showed the more active movement. In
Komai and Fukuoka (1934) recorded the foot chosen for
fighting with shield and weapon, the left foot advances toward
kicking in about 17,000 Japanese schoolchildren. Over the first
the enemy. Similarly, in firing a rifle, the left foot faces the tar-
eight school grades, the prevalence of left-footed kicking ranged
get. Could the marching convention have evolved as a ritualized
advance toward the enemy? Perhaps. The interpretation applies
from 5.5% to 8.5% in boys and from 3.5% to 6% in girls. The
prevalence of left-footed kicking in boys was higher than that
only to instances in which both arms are directly involved. In
of girls in all grades, and left-footed kicking showed a somewhat
individual dueling with pistol or fencing weapons, in which the
irregular decline over age. The prevalence of left-footedness
right hand holds the weapon and the other hand is not involved
parallels the prevalence of left-handedness for activities that are
in defense, the right foot faces the adversary.
Convinced that the right foot is dominant, Gould (1908) was
not subject to powerful cultural pressures. For instance, lefthanded use of a penknife and left-handed throwing showed fre-
not deterred by the observation of left-footed marching and
quencies similar to left-footed kicking, whereas by Grade 8 only
stated that the tendency to use the left foot was evidence for
0.2% of the boys and none of the girls wrote (brush stroke) with
right-sidedness. He made his argument clear with reference to
the left hand. The decline of left-footed kicking in the Komai
kicking. Gould felt that kicking with the left foot is evidence
for right-footedness because the right is chosen to support and
and Fukuoka study suggests that there are some cultural pressures against left-footed kicking, and such pressures may, as the
steady the body. In his desire to provide supporting evidence,
prevalence figures for one school in the Stern and Schilf (1932)
Gould also convinced himself, though not others (Downey,
report suggest, be quite strong in isolated cases. Kovac (1973)
1927), that a right-handed person would generally use the left
also reported a decline of left-footedness over the ages of 10
foot on a spade. Haefner (1930) used four measures of footed-
to 19 years. In Kovac's large sample, however, there was also a
ness: leading off, stepping up on a chair, kicking a ball with the
decrease in clear right preference so that there was an overall
foot, and pressing a sheet of paper down with the foot. He as-
decrease in the prevalence of right-footedness.
signed scores on the basis of congruence for foot and hand
Gardner (1941) also found a very high prevalence of right-
choice but ran into difficulties when the congruence scores of
footed kicking. She indicated that in her sample of young adults
right-handers were depressed and those of left-handers were ele-
about 89% preferred the right foot for kicking. This contrasts
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
182
MICHAEL PETERS
with lower prevalence figures from Blau (1946), who reported
that in a large sample of American schoolchildren, 74.2% used
the right foot for kicking, whereas 25.8% used the left foot. Even
lower prevalence figures were given by Cohen (1976), in whose
sample of over 500 schoolchildren there was an almost even
split between those who preferred the right and those who preferred the left foot for kicking. Nachshon and Denno (1986)
studied a very large sample of 7-year-old Black children and
reported an overall prevalence of right-footed kicking in 63%.
Nachshon, Denno, and Aurand (1983) suggested that Black
children have a higher prevalence of variable foot choices in
kicking than do White children. Because the two groups did not
differ in the prevalence of right preference for hand and eye use,
this difference may be taken as a further indicator of cultural
and environmental influences on foot preference.
Annett and Turner (1974) distinguished between pure and
mixed handedness groups. Pure left-handers, for instance,
choose the left hand for all items on a handedness questionnaire, whereas mixed left-handers declare some right-hand
preferences. About 96.2% of the pure right-handers and 86.7%
of the mixed right-handers preferred the right foot for kicking.
Of the pure left-handers, 83.8% preferred the left foot, whereas
of the mixed left-handers, only 52.7% preferred the left foot.
Because there are fewer pure than mixed left-handers, lefthanders as a group would show not nearly as strong a preference
for the left foot as right-handers would show for the right foot.
Peters and Durding (1979a) showed comparable results, keeping in mind that they did not differentiate between pure and
mixed handedness. Of 56 right-handers, 95% preferred to kick
with the right foot, and of 56 left-handers, 50% preferred to kick
with the left foot. In the large-scale studies by Nachshon and
Denno (1986) and Nachshon et al. (1983), left-handed children
were just as likely to be right- as left-footed. In a survey of about
150 Canadian Indian schoolchildren (Peters, 1986), however,
80% of the left-handers preferred the left foot for kicking a ball,
whereas close to 100% of the right-handers preferred the right
foot. There was an unusually low prevalence of left-handers in
this sample (about 6.4%), and 3.8% were what Annett and
Turner would have called pure left-handers. Perhaps the lower
prevalence figures suggest that in this community a bias against
left-handedness was operative and that the left-handers who persisted were quite committed to their preference. If so, this might
be taken as indirect support for Annett and Turner's contention
that the more clearly left-handers are left-handed, the more
likely they are to kick with the left foot.
The results on kicking preferences allow two qualitative statements. First, right-handers show a clear right-foot preference
for kicking. Second, left-handers as a group do not show a correspondingly clear preference for the left foot. There is some reason to believe that pure left-handers show a stronger left-foot
preference than mixed left-handers. In quantitative terms, the
prevalence figures are not in as much agreement as one would
wish for such a simple measure. The figures given by Cohen
(1976) show a relatively low prevalence of right-foot preference
in the population, whereas at the other extreme, Singh (1970)
found almost exclusive right-footed kicking in right-handers
and a fair proportion ofleft-handers who kicked with the right
foot as well. To further complicate the picture, a lack of consistency is seen even in studies that have been used as standard
instruments for the assessment of laterality. For instance, in the
normative data published in the A. J. Harris (1958) laterality
test, the prevalence figures for footedness show enough inconsistency to lead to concerns. Without doubt, cultural factors are
important. For instance, in cultures in which soccer is common,
children and adults probably give more decisive and informed
answers about foot preference than in cultures in which such or
similar sports are uncommon. In some cultures, biases against
left-hand use might also transfer to use of the left foot, but this
factor is difficult to evaluate and probably is no longer of major
importance in Western cultures. A further source of variability
is the precise phrasing of the question. Prevalence figures indicate less lateralization if subjects have the impression that the
question is in the nature of "Which foot can you kick with?"
and more lateralization if subjects think that the nature of the
question is "Which foot would you choose when it really
counts?" Finally, handedness is an important variable. Performance testing might reveal that left-handers are quite proficient
with either foot. This speculation is based on interviews with
left-handed soccer players, who, though stating a left-foot preference, often made it clear that they felt quite adept with the
right foot as well. A converse statement cannot be made about
right-handed soccer players. Porac and Coren (1981) looked at
proficiency scores of soccer players relative to right- and leftfootedness and relative to congruent or crossed laterality of
hand and foot. The term proficiency does not refer to a direct
measure of performance but rather to an indirect measure in
which points are awarded on the basis of the league level at
which a playerplays. Such a measure, of necessity, provides only
a very indirect index of playing ability, and considerable variability can be expected at the same league level. Porac and
Coren found no significant differences when they compared
proficiency scores of right- and left-footed soccer players, although the means favored the left-footers. Soccer players with
mixed preferences had significantly higher proficiency scores
than those with congruent preferences. Unfortunately, the data
do not allow a judgment on whether this was based on righthanders who kicked with the left foot or on left-handers who
kicked with the right foot. A guess, however, can be made. As
in boxing, in which the left-hander enjoys an advantage because
he has greater experience in fighting right-handers than righthanders have in fighting left-handers (Porac & Coren, 1981), the
left-footed soccer player also has advantages. For instance, in
close maneuvering, the player who can advance the ball with the
left foot can keep the body between the ball and the right-footed
defender. In addition, a player who can kick penalty shots with
either the left or the right foot (the equivalent of a switch-hitter
in baseball) is at a great advantage. Porac and Coren speculated
that in soccer a crossed hand-foot preference is of advantage
because the postural adjustments favor a pattern in which the
kicking foot is opposite the preferred hand. The assumption, by
no means substantiated, is that the compensatory movements
made by the contralateral upper limb are the sorts of movements that are done best by the preferred upper limb. In spite
of a lack of precise figures on the prevalence of left-footed or
mixed-footed soccer players, however, it is possible to make
some statements about the degree to which the choice of the
kicking foot can be affected by training. Considering that the
ability to kick equally well with both feet is strongly selected for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
FOOTEDNESS
183
in soccer and considering that left-footed players are in demand
rails in bars recognize this preference), with frequent shifts
for the position of left forward in particular, the persistence of
from one side to the other, and lateral preferences may be
a right-foot bias in world-class soccer competition is striking.
readily observed. Bird-watchers may have a good pastime look-
Many players have such a strong right-foot bias that even at the
ing for asymmetries in standing birds!
world-cup level of competition, they advance the ball largely
Finally, Stern and Schilf (1932) used an unorthodox but fa-
with the right foot, even if that means breaking stride. It can
miliar activity, sliding on ice. They asked children which leg was
be concluded that for many individuals, the choice of foot for
leading when they ran and slid on ice. The right leg tended to
kicking is as compelling as the choice of hand for writing.
be favored.
Other common foot preference measures. First, which foot
Early preferences for stepping and placing feet.
Peters and
leads when beginning to march or walk is probably contami-
Petrie (1979) studied the stepping reflex in a group of infants
nated by environmental influences (Gould, 1908; Haefner,
ranging in age from 17 to 105 days and conducted four follow-
1930) because marching with the left seems to be the norm. In
up tests. They found a strong overall preference for leading the
a more recent look at this measure, Singh (1970) found less
stepping reflex with the right foot. Melekian (1981) also investi-
extreme preference figures than were reported in the older stud-
gated the stepping reflex but with a much larger sample. Mele-
ies, but in his sample of schoolchildren, the majority of both
kian tested 95 infants at birth, 109 infants both at birth and at
right-handers and left-handers led with the left foot.
discharge from hospital, and a further 132 infants at discharge
Second, choice of foot for picking up a pebble tends to be
only. With this sample, Melekian also found a strong right-foot
congruent with choice of foot for kicking (Augustyn & Peters,
bias in leading the stepping reflex, with prevalence figures that
1986a) and is part of the foot inventory of the A. J. Harris
were not significantly different from those seen in the Peters and
(1958) lateralization test. Singh (1970) reported that all of his
Petrie study. Trehub, Corter, and Shosenberg (1983), however,
right-handers lifted a small object with the right foot and that
failed to find a right-foot bias in their study of the stepping re-
29% of the left-handers chose the right foot as well. Augustyn
flex and placing responses in infants. They found no consistent
and Peters (1986a) found that 75% of the right-handers and 13%
directional differences in the stepping reflex and a left bias for
of the left-handers preferred the right foot for lifting a pebble.
at least some comparisons for the placing response. In a careful
Porac and Coren (1981) included this measure in their behav-
study, Kamptner, Cornwell, Fitzgerald, and Harris (1985), us-
iorally validated self-report inventory but gave no separate
ing the criteria that Petrie and Peters used, also failed to find
prevalence figures. Lifting a pebble is a good foot preference
reliable right-foot biases in the stepping reflex in infants. In 24
task in the context of the present definition of footedness be-
familiar right-handed infants, they found a small (nonsignifi-
cause it forces a clear division of functional roles of the two feet
cant) right bias in the period from 2 to 3 days afterbirth and no
in terms of a foot that manipulates and one that supports, but
discernible trends at later testing dates. Thelen, Ridley-John-
this is so only if the subject is standing, forcing a choice of which
son, and Fisher (1983) studied the kicking response in young
leg is used for support and which is used for manipulation.
infants and failed to find a consistent group preference during
Third, stepping up on a chair (Gardner, 1941; Haefner, 1930)
a longitudinal study of 8 infants. (After 6 weeks of age, group
and stepping down from a chair do not give preference choices
differences showed a slight right-leg advantage in seven of the
that distinguish as clearly between the right and left feet as do
nine follow-up tests). Thelen et al. suggested that shifting bilat-
other measures. For instance, Gardner (1941) reported that in
eral coordination and laterality patterns in infants may be due
her sample 60% preferred the right foot for stepping up on a
to a rivalry among reflex pathways that mature at different
chair and 53% preferred the right foot for stepping down from
rates. The work of Coryell and Cardinali (1979) suggests an in-
a chair. Augustyn and Peters (1986a) found somewhat higher
teraction among reflexes. They observed more leg movements
figures, with 82% of the right-handers and 22% of the left-hand-
in the direction on the side of preferred head direction in the
ers preferring the right foot. Here, as with other tests, the situa-
tonic neck reflex, but they did not see this result on all occa-
tion is probably more complicated than it appears at first
sions. This cannot, however, really explain the discrepancies
glance. Does the reason for stepping up on a chair, that is, step-
seen in the laterality of the stepping response. The kicking re-
ping up to tie a shoelace versus stepping up to reach something,
sponse is quite different from the stepping reflex. Thelen et al.
make a difference, and if so, is there an interaction between
noted the strong positive correlation between arousal and the
chair height and choice of foot?
kicking reflex. Kicking can be seen both when the infant is cry-
Fourth, Chaurasia (1976) studied the position of the legs
ing and during more pleasant (but always quite active) states,
tucked under the body in the legs-crossed "Palthi" posture that
and it may be considered a nonspecific and quite automatic mo-
is common in India and stated that the preference patterns favor
tor corollary of arousal. In contrast, the stepping reflex is associ-
the left leg. Blau (1946) observed which leg was on top in the
ated with a quieter state and is not as easily elicited when the
crossed leg sitting position and found the right leg favored in
infant is strongly aroused. Zelazo (1983) remarked that infants
66% of subjects. These tests are perhaps analogous to the question of which thumb is on top of the other in hand clasping—a
appear to experience the stepping response as a pleasurable activity. If the elicitation of the stepping response is somewhat de-
hand posture that tends to favor the left hand (Blau, 1946).
pendent on the infant's being at ease, it is possible that the spe-
Fifth, a measure that is of potential interest because it is easily
cific interaction between experimenter and infant (quite apart
observed in a variety of settings is the asymmetry seen in re-
from technical aspects, such as control for the tonic neck reflex
laxed standing, in which one leg is rigidly extended for support
and how the infant is positioned) plays some role in the way in
and the other has a slight flexion (Kovac & Horkovic, 1970).
which the response is manifested. I do not attempt here to relate
This is by far the preferred standing posture in humans (foot
a possible right-leg bias (which, as the above discussion shows,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
184
MICHAEL PETERS
cannot be considered firmly established) in the stepping re-
are always run counterclockwise so that the left leg always faces
sponse to specific forms of foot dominance later in life. Instead
the inside) and propel with the right, even though this might not
and in agreement with the model of developing lateralization
be the natural preference of the hurdler.
advanced by Peters (1983), laterality at this stage would be seen
Another common preference is found in mounting horses.
simply as an early precursor of lateral biases in focusing atten-
The rider uses the stirrup on the left side of the horse with the
tion toward action.
left leg and swings up and on the horse with the right leg. Before
Informally observed fool and leg preferences. In athletics, the
stirrups, the preference for leading with the right leg probably
choice of the arm often determines the role of the feet. For in-
resulted in the same directional preference. As with marching,
stance, which foot is used in the final phase of throwing the
the need for uniformity would also be expected to favor a com-
javelin, discus, or shot is determined by the hand and arm used,
mon direction of mounting horses in the cavalry.
but the relation between hand and foot movements is not sim-
Ballet dancers are commonly expected to overcome inherent
ple. The right-handed boxer has the left foot forward, and the
asymmetries, but casual discussions with both ballet dancers
line offeree for a right-handed punch is also initially from right
and ice skaters suggest that individuals have directional prefer-
foot to right arm. In the pole vault, the situation is slightly
ences, in terms of pirouettes and the leg that leads off jumps,
different: The leg that is used to propel the body interacts with
that must be overcome. Whether these preferences are system-
the position in which the pole is held. If the left foot is used to
atic remains to be determined. In this context, consider an observation by Bell (1870)
propel the body, the left arm leads, and the right arm is used for
the initial lift as the pole vaulter "climbs" the pole to reach
greater height.
In the high jump, most athletes prefer the left foot as the foot
that provides the thrust, a fact that Stern and Schilf (1932) remarked on some time ago. With older jumping styles, this preference could be explained by virtue of the fact that the right leg
was used to lead over the bar. The backward jumping style (the
Fosbury flop), favored by most current high jumpers, does not
assign such a clear leading role to the right leg but is nevertheless associated with a preference for thrusting with the left leg.
For instance, I observed in the 1986 Canadian national trackand-field competition that six of the seven top-ranking male
high jumpers jumped off with the left leg. I observed a similar
ratio for female high jumpers in the 1986 Commonwealth
Games. In the long jump, the situation is slightly more complicated because there are two conflicting demands on the jumper:
The foot used for jumping off would by preference be the left
foot, but in the long jump that foot has to be very delicately
placed under peripheral visual guidance, presumably something that favors the right foot. The final choice of foot used to
We see that opera dancers execute their more difficult feats on the
right foot: but their preparatory exercises better evince the natural
weakness of the left limb: in order to avoid awkwardness in public
exhibitions, they are obliged to give double practice to the left leg;
and if they neglect to do so, an ungraceful preference to the right
side will be remarked, (p. 92)
In dancing, individual preferences must be overcome not only
for the obvious reasons but also because in dancing with partners foot preference for a given activity cannot be expressed
independent of the partner.
One of the most commonly encountered role differentiations
for the feet is seen in operating cars. Cars generally have the
accelerator on the right and the brake and clutch on the left.
Interestingly, this arrangement is found regardless of whether a
car has a right- or left-handed steering arrangement. Even in
racing cars, in which individual driver preferences in terms of
the arrangement of the gearshift and the steering wheel are accommodated, it is virtually unknown to have the accelerator
pedal operated by the left foot. The design whereby the right
foot operates the accelerator probably owes its existence to
right-handed engineers. A similar situation is encountered with
propel the athlete has to be the best possible compromise be-
musical instruments. For instance, in piano playing it is the
tween these two conflicting aspects. This perhaps explains why
right foot that is most active and that most intimately interacts
I observed an even split among the six top-ranking long jumpers
with the hand that carries the voice or melody. Anton Rubin-
in terms of foot choice for jumping off in the same competition.
stein (Bernstein, 1981) called the right pedal "the soul of the
One can perhaps apply a similar argument to athletes in the
piano" (p. 143).
hurdles events. Here, as with long jumpers, the number of hur-
It appears that in the design of machines and instruments, the
dlers who propel themselves over the hurdle with the right foot
predilection of right-handers dominates the layout of controls.
and the number of hurdlers who propel themselves over the hur-
Clearly, right-handers feel more comfortable with arrangements
dle with the left foot are more evenly matched than is the case
that recognize the right foot as the preferred foot. Designers
for high jumpers. For instance, in the 1986 International Ama-
generally do not consider left-handers—a failing that is easy to
teur Athletics competition in Rome, more than half of the fe-
understand considering both the number and the directional in-
male and male hurdlers led over the hurdle with the left leg and
consistencies in that group. One assumption having face valid-
propelled themselves with the right leg in the short-distance
ity but yet to be fully supported by data is that left-handers are
hurdles. For the short distance, hurdlers make three strides be-
more flexible in adapting to various hand-foot-task combina-
tween hurdles and have consistent leg roles. In the 400-m hur-
tions than right-handers. If not, their situation is unfortunate
dles, athletes ideally have an uneven number of strides between
because they have little choice but to conform to the mode of
hurdles as well (usually 15) so that they can always take off with
right-handers. Whereas left-handers may be able to obtain left-
the same leg, but some have to add strides toward the end as
handed hand instruments (scissors and even guitars and vio-
they tire. Because of this, 400-m hurdlers are trained to master
lins), few if any instances of choice of foot exist in the layout of
taking off with either leg. An added complication arises because
industrial machines and musical instruments.
in the turns it is advantageous to lead with the left leg (the races
Is preference related to neuroanatomical variables? Little is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
FOOTEDNESS
known about the relation between handedness and the motor
system, but even less is known about the relation between footedness and the motor system. A hint of possible significance,
however, comes from Irving, Rebeiz, and Tomlinson (1974),
who counted the number of motor neurons in the lumbar and
sacral regions of the human spinal cord. All 5 of their subjects
showed remarkable right-left asymmetries in cell counts at the
S3 (third sacral vertebra) level. Although in some cases one side
had more than twice the number of motor neurons than the
other, the fact that relatively few motor neurons are found at
this level makes the finding difficult to interpret. Nevertheless,
further studies along these lines might be of interest.
This section shows that humans have marked foot preferences. Interestingly, the only other group of animals with a wellstudied foot bias (Rogers, 1980), parrots, favors the left foot for
holding objects. Corballis (1983) suggested that the left foot of
the parrot is comparable to the right hand of humans. An alternate interpretation, however, is possible. Parrots use their beak
primarily as a manipulative tool, and when the beak is used for
manipulation, it is analogous to the right hand of humans. The
left foot of the parrot then performs the role that the left hand
performs in the human right-hander, positioning the object so
that the beak can act on it.
Foot Performance Measures
Ultimately, preference measures should be indicators of performance differences. In the case of the hands, the dictum by
Ludwig (1970) that the preferred hand is faster and performs
more easily and better seems to hold. Does this apply to foot
preference as well?
Tapping. I discuss foot tapping separately because it is the
most thoroughly explored foot performance measure. Gardner
(1941) had subjects tap on the key of a telegraph switch with
the big toe. Her trial duration was unusually long, four sessions
of 75 s each. My experience indicates that with such trial durations, inexperienced subjects have great difficulty maintaining
proper performance with either foot. This perhaps explains why
only a minor speed advantage for the right foot was found.
Gardner (1941) did comment that the left foot was often irregular and spasmodic in performance. Ruisel (1970) found a rightfoot superiority in tapping for 80% of a sample of 128 boys.
Malmo and Andrews (1945) tested 100 men as a control sample
in a study on the foot performance of polyneuropathic subjects.
They found a clear right-foot advantage and a test-retest reliability of .92. Peters and Durding (1979a) also found a clear
right-foot advantage in tapping for right-handers and a slight
group advantage for the right foot in left-handers. Unlike finger
tapping, in which relatively consistent speeds are found across
studies, the absolute speeds in foot tapping appear to be sensitive to trial durations and the tapping apparatus. In the Malmo
and Andrews study, the right foot managed, on average, 34.4
taps/10 s, whereas the left foot managed 30.4 taps/10 s. In the
Peters and Durding (1979a) study, the corresponding figures
were 53.2 and 51.4. In the former study, 30-s trials were used,
whereas in the latter each foot performed ten 10-s trials. The
Peters and Durding (1979a) study and the Gardner (1941) study
agree in that both found faster foot tapping in men than in
women. This corresponds to similar findings for finger tapping
185
(Peters & Durding, 1979b). Although the right-foot advantage
for right-handers comes as no surprise, the fact that left-handers
as a group showed a right-foot advantage is somewhat puzzling.
In a subsequent study, Augustyn and Peters (1986b) reported
two replications. Overall, in the three experiments in which the
tapping performances of the right and the left foot were compared in right- and left-handers, right-handers showed a consistent right-foot advantage, whereas there was an inconsistent
(across studies) right-foot advantage for left-handers. A left-foot
advantage for left-footers was not found in any of the studies.
Because all subjects in the three experiments were young adults,
a possible source of a right-foot bias for left-handers cannot be
ignored. In driving a car, the right foot operates the accelerator,
and the movement that the foot makes by rotating around the
ankle is similar to the movement that subjects make while tapping with the foot. A study of foot tapping in right- and lefthanded children below driving age would allow evaluation of
this factor. Alternatively, adults who do not drive a car could
be tested. Although there is a contaminant for this measure in
adults, the speed of foot tapping is potentially a more suitable
motor test for laterality in children than hand performance tests
because the general transfer bias that benefits the preferred
hand is less of a problem with the feet.
When the hands are engaged in coordinated tapping of a simple rhythm in which one hand performs one tap for every two
of the other hand, a clear role differentiation emerges in righthanders (Peters, 1985). Performance is better when the right
hand takes the faster beat and the left hand takes the slower beat.
In left-handers, no group asymmetry of this type can be seen.
When right- and left-handed subjects are asked to perform the
2:1 task with the feet, the same pattern is observed; right-handers perform better when the right foot taps two beats to every
one in the left foot. In the converse arrangement, performance
tends to be slower and more variable (Peters, 1987). Left-handers show no such difference; performance tends to be similar
with either foot-task combination. This finding supports the
conjecture offered in the discussion of human-machine interactions, that left-handers as a group are less clearly committed
to a particular laterality pattern than are right-handers.
Other performance measures. It is to Gardner's (1941) credit
that this entire section is concerned mostly with foot performance tasks studied by her. The tests are listed not so much
because they allow a clear differentiation between right and left
(in Gardner's, 1941, study they do not) but because they offer a
point of departure for new standardized foot performance tests.
Subjects were asked to grasp marbles with their toes and carry
them to and drop them into a container, move a marble up an
incline and maneuver it into a hole in a tin plate, grasp a rubber
stopper and throw it 15 in. (38.1 cm) into a hole, and unlock
bolt locks with their feet. These tasks were done under visual
guidance, but additional tasks were done without visual guidance. Among these were placing pegs in a Wallin pegboard,
placing shapes into the Seguin form board, grasping and placing clothespins, and lifting marbles. The right foot had an overall advantage in all these tasks, but this advantage was not impressive, except when subjects had to undo a bolt lock with their
feet. Gardner (1941) provided no statistical analysis, but those
who wish to can perform such an analysis on the basis of extensive reporting of summary data for all the subjects. Overall,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
186
MICHAEL PETERS
Gardner (1941) stated that men surpassed women in tasks in-
Coren (1981) reported a Pearson product-moment correlation
volving speed and accuracy under visual guidance but that
coefficient of only .527 (accounting for 28% of the variance be-
women performed better on tasks that were factually complex
tween indexes of lateral preferences for hands and feet). In Eyre
and that were done without visual guidance. In a subsequent
and Schmeekle's (1933) sample, however, 50 of the 72 subjects
study, Gardner (1942) explored the extent to which lateral ad-
showed a correspondence for the preference of the right foot
vantages could be explained by differences in foot sensitivity
and the right hand, and 17 subjects showed a correspondence
but came to the conclusion that the sensitivity advantage of the
of left-hand and left-foot preference. Clymer and Silva (1985)
right foot was quite minor. According to Gardner (1942), how-
found a very strong association as well. In their sample, 585
ever, the sensitivity differences between the feet were larger than
right-handers had a right-foot preference, compared with only
those between the hands. Summarizing the performances on
37 right-handers who had a left-foot preference. There were 31
Gardner's (1941) imaginative measures, one can state that the
left-handers with a left-foot preference and 14 left-handers with
right-left differences were not very marked and that the lack
a right-foot preference. These figures suggest a rather strong as-
of marked performance differences was in contrast to the very
sociation between hand and foot preference, particularly for
strong right-foot preference for kicking that was shown by her
sample. Gardner (1941) did indicate, however, that when the
right-handers. In terms of tapping performance, Peters and
Durding (1979a) found only a very weak correlation between
performance asymmetry favors the left foot, the right-left
hand and foot tapping speed, but they found, as did Malmo and
differences in subjects with this pattern are not as large as the
Andrews (1945), that the performances of the right and left foot
performance differences between the feet for subjects who show
were strongly correlated.
a right-foot advantage.
Singh (1970) used a strength measure; it required subjects to
Little information is available on hand-foot relations in concurrent performance. This is an important area from the ergo-
position themselves between two walls 3 ft (0.91 m) apart and
nomics perspective because many machines (e.g., planes, grad-
push against a measuring device with the foot while supported
ers, forklifts, and cranes) require the finely coordinated use of
against one wall with the back. There were no significant differ-
hands and feet. The only experimental data pertaining to hand-
ences in leg strength for right-handers (in both men and women
foot coordination were found in Stetson's (1905) remarkable
a slight majority pushed more strongly with the left, and 48.9%
article on rhythmic performance. Stetson found that subjects
of the 92 subjects showed equal strength), but in left-handers the
who were required to beat triplets with various combinations
left leg was stronger in 68% of the 25 subjects, with 8% showing
of beats delivered by the hand and foot did well when a foot-
greater strength in the right leg and 24% showing equal strength.
hand-hand sequence with accent on the foot was delivered.
Singh's findings, if replicated, are remarkable because they con-
Subjects performed badly, however, when a hand-foot-hand or
stitute the reverse of the pattern normally found in comparing
a foot-hand-foot sequence was required. A discussion of the
the performances of right- and left-handers; there is usually a
reasons for this pattern is beyond the scope of this review, but it
greater lateral asymmetry in right-handers and more evenly
is possible that "inertia of attention" (Titchener, 1908, p. 242)
matched performances in left-handers. Two additional studies
interacts with a tendency to favor the hands when attention has
(Carnahan, Elliott, & Lee, 1986; Rosenrot, 1980) provide evi-
to be switched. Obviously, percussionists and, in particular, or-
dence for left-foot superiority in strength or accuracy of force
gan players would be attractive subjects for the study of precise
production in right-handers.
hand-foot coordination patterns.
Finally, a number of foot performance tests have been used
Gretmer (1947) compared the performance of the hands and
in the context of motor assessment, without a particular focus
feet in a task that simulated some aspects of piloting. The sub-
on lateral performance asymmetry. I will discuss these with ref-
jects had to compensate for movements of a pointer either with
erence to neuropsychological testing.
stick movement or wheel turning by using the hands or with
rudder pedal action by using the feet. Gretmer found that foot
Relation Between Hands and Feet
When hand preference is correlated with other lateral preferences, such as eye and ear preferences, the correlation between
performance on this task was significantly poorer than hand
performance. The differences between hand and foot performance were confounded, however, by different types of movement.
hand and foot preferences tends to be strongest (Annett &
An electrophysiological study by Brunia, Voorn, and Berger
Turner, 1974; Eyre &Schmeeckle, 1933; Porac & Coren, 1981;
(1985) examined the magnitude and laterally effects of hand
Searleman, 1980). In terms of the computation of correlations,
and foot movement-related slow potentials in right- and left-
the criteria used to determine hand and foot dominance are, of
course, very important. This is illustrated by Searleman's find-
in right- and left-handers the potentials for finger movements
ing that footedness is a better predictor of direction and strength
were larger in the hemisphere contralateral to the moving fin-
of language lateralization than is handedness. Searleman used
gers (i.e., larger over the left hemisphere when the fingers of the
only two measures of foot preference, however, compared with
right hand were moving), the potentials were larger in the hemi-
seven measures of hand preference. The conclusions could have
sphere ipsilateral to the movement in the case of foot move-
been different if only two hand preference measures had been
ment. Brunia et al. found no differences between right- and left-
used.
In addition, the problem of attenuation of correlation that
handers in this regard. Does this mean that there is a fundamen-
arises when variables crowd one end of the spectrum of possible
level? It is true that in the motor homunculus for humans the
values has to be taken into account. For instance, Porac and
foot region occupies a much smaller area than does the hand
handers. Brunia et al. reported an unexpected pattern. Whereas
tal difference between hand and foot control at the cortical
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
FOOTEDNESS
187
region (Penfield & Rasmussen, 1950), but it is also true that the
for the hand is also seen in the foot of left-handers (Chapman,
foot area is proportionately quite large—larger than the com-
Chapman, & Allen, 1987).
bined areas for the knee and thigh. Observation of motor defi-
Of the existing models of laterally (cf. Bryden, 1982), An-
cits after pyramidal tract lesions suggests that the relation of the
nett's (1978) model is perhaps best suited to account for the
foot to the leg is comparable to that of the hand to the arm.
above patterns. Annett's (1978) single-gene right-shift model is
Brodal (1973) described, for instance, that after a right-sided
unusual in that it proposes a right-shift tendency for right-hand-
stroke, paralysis of the left side was quite complete. He noted
ers but no directional predisposition for left-handers. In that
that during recovery, whereas arm and leg movement (proximal
sense, Annett's (1978) model can deal with the lack of an over-
musculature) was possible, extension of the fingers—especially
whelming foot asymmetry for left-handers and can also account
the thumb—was impossible and that dorsiflexion of the toes
for the strong right-foot preference of right-handers. Annett's
and dorsiflexion and pronation of the left foot were completely
(1978) model explicitly allows for an interaction among envi-
abolished. In this sense, the specific motor innervation of hands
ronmental, random, and genetic factors, and the occurrence of
and feet seems quite similar. Boschert and Deecke (1986) sug-
the occasional left-footed right-hander is not irreconcilable
with the model.
gested that the ipsilateral dominance of the readiness potential
related to foot movement is not due to a fundamental difference
Some theories suggest that it is the strength of lateral prefer-
in the way in which hand and foot movement are organized.
ences rather than the direction that is a heritable trait (Bryden,
Instead, it is an artifact of the recording arrangement for such
1982; Collins, 1977), and these theories should be able to deal
potentials; the ipsilateral predominance is due to the medial
with left-handers relatively well. The literature shows that left-
location of the foot representation and the direction in which
handers tend to be somewhat less lateralized in preference and
the negative dipole points on activation.
performance than right-handers in both hand and feet, and the
strength-of-laterality theories are not contradicted by a different direction of that laterality in hand and feet. Theories that
Conclusions
stress the role of either natural (Corballis & Morgan, 1978) or
abnormal (Geschwind & Galaburda, 1984) development as a
Evidence suggests that in humans the musculature and bones
cause for handedness would also be able to deal with a lack of
of the left leg are, on average, slightly larger than the muscula-
concordance in hand and foot preference. Some quite specific
ture and bones of the right leg. This applies to right-handers,
assumptions, however, would have to be made about the devel-
and the situation in left-handers is unclear.
opmental schedules in the acquisition of motor control in the
Whereas anatomical asymmetries may be subtle, functional
hands and feet. Finally, a group of theories attributes the devia-
asymmetries in the majority of people are marked. By and
tion from right-handedness to pathological factors (e.g., Bakan,
large, the concepts used in defining functional roles for the
Dibb, & Reed, 1973). According to Bakan et al., all people are
hands apply to the feet as well. In both cases, an action toward
essentially right-handers unless they suffer brain damage during
a goal is carried out most directly by the preferred limb, and
the birth process, with a consequent switch in handedness. At
support for that action is provided by the other limb. This prin-
least with the populations that I have dealt with, there is no
ciple expresses itself over a great range of movement classes. For
indication of a motor impairment severe enough to lead a sub-
instance, the goal may be kicking a ball (the other foot supports
ject to switch a natural preference. The pathological model also
and balances the body) or moving a car (the other foot operates
has a problem in accounting for crossed preferences: If brain
the clutch). Where hands and feet collaborate, this principle can
damage is severe enough to force a switch from the right to the
be extended to an entire body half. For instance, in operating a
left hand, it should also produce a switch in footedness from
motorcycle, the right hand (accelerator) and right foot (brake)
right to left. In other words, left-handers should also be left-
realize the goal of directly changing the rate of movement of
footers. There are enough exceptions to such a concordance to
the bike, whereas the left hand (gearshift) and left foot (clutch)
question the theory in its general form.
support the actions of the right hand and foot. In many cases,
Beyond this, some general and some specific problems in as-
foot action is somewhat subordinate to hand action. This subor-
sessing foot preference relative to theories of handedness are
dination can assume different degrees. Thus, in throwing the
posed. A general problem is presented by whether the need to
javelin, shot, hammer, or discus, the role of the feet is entirely
determined by the choice of hand. Similarly, in shooting a rifle
specialize foot use is strictly comparable to the need to specialize hand use. In daily activities, the hands are continually en-
or using a bow and arrow, the foot stance is determined by the
gaged in movements that require role differentiation, and it
role of the hands. More subtle in terms of underlying causes is
matters which hand does what in order to perform well. In con-
the choice of the right foot in operating the mute pedal in sup-
trast, there are only a few activities encountered by the average
port of the hands in piano performance.
In the examples given, the majority of right-handers use the
person that require a role differentiation of the feet and in which
it matters very much which foot does what. For instance, few
right foot as the foot that most directly parallels the role of the
people perform the kind of tasks used in the assessment of foot-
right hand, and it is for this reason that the term preferred foot
edness on a frequent basis, and this might be one reason for the
has some face validity when applied to cases in which the feet
less powerfully expressed lateral bias in foot use. Even in the
act on or manipulate (Corballis, 1983) objects. The literature
case of kicking, one of the few instances in which role differen-
makes it clear that the right foot tends to be the preferred foot
tiation of the feet matters in a practical way, only relatively few
of right-handers. The situation remains unclear in left-handers,
people use this movement in sports in a way that really matters.
but the pattern of a reduced consistency in lateral preferences
As a result, the choices made on foot preference questionnaires,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
188
MICHAEL PETERS
though they may be relatively consistent, do not reflect as strong
a lateral bias as the choices made on the hand preference questionnaires. The lack of hand-foot congruence should therefore
be seen relative to the fact that foot preference has a weaker
status than hand preference. This latter premise is testable by
examining the degree to which subjects can attain proficiency
on a given task with the nonpreferred foot. It should be noted
in this context that Kovac (1973) reported that about 13% of
the 16-19-year-olds in his sample felt that they were equally
adept with both feet; this information has to be seen relative to
an astonishingly high 6%-7% in the same age group that
claimed that they were equally adept with both hands. Finally,
as has been pointed out in the context of foot use in athletics,
foot preference is often determined by what the hands do, and
for this reason alone, there must be sufficient flexibility in foot
preference mechanisms to accommodate the hands.
A more specific, methodological problem has to do with the
classification of handedness, particularly with reference to the
labeling of pure right- and left-handers. Generally, the \abelpure
is conferred when a person shows complete lateral consistency
in all choices. It is clear that the prevalence of pure handedness
is quite dependent on the composition and length of a handedness catalog. For instance, there will be far more pure righthanders when the only questions in the catalog are "Which hand
do you write with; which hand do you hammer with?" than
when a longer questionnaire (e.g., Oldfield, 1971) is used. Depending on the makeup of the questionnaire, then, the proportion of cases with or without concordance for hand and foot can
be quite different in different studies. Perhaps it would be useful
to define primary items, as has been done in handedness questionnaires (Annett, 1970; Bryden, 1982), for foot preference
questionnaires. Even in the case of the much studied hands, the
question of how to weigh the items remains unresolved, and it
is not surprising that even less thought has been given to this
issue relative to foot preference.
So much for the theoretical considerations of foot measures
relative to handedness theories. But, however imperfectly expressed, there are observable lateral biases in foot use that
emerge quite clearly from the review.
In more practical terms, the patterns observed in studies can
be summarized through a number of principles that will be of
use in human-machine designs:
1. In the design of foot controls, the preferred foot should
perform the actions that are more directly related to the goal of
movement, and the nonpreferred foot should, whenever possible, be assigned supportive movements.
2. Where hands and feet collaborate, complementary roles
should be assigned to the hand and foot on the same side.
3. If operations can be subdivided in terms of a hierarchy of
complexity and the degree to which the movement is directly
attended to, foot actions should be given a role subordinate to
that of hand actions whenever the question of assigning a subordinate role to hand or foot arises.
4. For almost all right-handers, the preferred foot is the right
foot. Left-handers, if they do not already have foot preference
patterns similar to those of right-handers, appear to adapt quite
readily to the arrangement that is suitable for right-handers.
Neuropsychological Assessment of Foot Performance
For the practical purposes of neuropsychological testing, motor performance is of interest in a variety of contexts. When
apraxias are suspected, the basic ability of the patient to perform certain movements must be at the basis of any further
examination. Specific motor deficits are tested for when particular cortical or subcortical areas are involved. Finally, there is
frequently an interest in overall motor performance in the context of developmental difficulties or when the issue of clumsiness as a clinical entity is raised. Much of the interest in motor
performance is limited to hand movement, but I make a case
here in favor of examination of foot movement. The study of
foot movement is of interest in itself, but a case can be made
that tests of foot motor performance have broad implications
in neuropsychological testing. To argue the point, I give several
circumstantial observations.
Those who get drunk on occasion or have an opportunity to
observe drunks will note the peculiar fact that impairment of
gait precedes impairment of hand movements. For instance, a
drunk person may perform quite passably on the piano, only to
stagger about markedly when rising from the piano bench. The
principle of "the legs go first" can also be seen in a completely
different context. In tick paralysis, for instance, caused by tick
bites, impairment first affects the legs and then involves the upper limbs (Mongan, 1979). Related observations can be made
in animals as well. When animals such as cats are anesthetized
with barbiturates, they may pull themselves along with the front
legs in the early phases of "going under," while the hindlegs may
already be immobilized. Similar observations can be made
when larger carnivores are hit with tranquilizer darts. These observations suggest that under certain conditions of impaired
central nervous system function, impairments in foot movement are more sensitive indicators of trouble than are impairments in hand movements. For this reason alone, foot movement should be an important aspect of neuropsychological examinations.
Two of the most commonly examined indicators of foot performance in the traditional literature are the milestones of
standing and walking in infants. Here, too, the principle of better control in the upper extremities is clear: Infants can competently manipulate objects with their hands long before they
master standing or walking. This is also seen in infants who have
delayed motor milestones, as in Down's syndrome (Henderson,
1984). In a condition such as Down's syndrome, it is not clear
whether foot movement is relatively more affected than hand
movement because of an overall motor impairment. Difficulties
in running and walking, however, are often among the most easily recognized signs. In some conditions, such as Asperger's syndrome (Burgoine & Wing, 1983), problems with gait and posture are among the obvious signs—at a distance—that something is not quite right. Gubbay, Ellis, Walton, and Court (1965)
reported problems with gait and leg use in a group of children
with below-normal intelligence and apractic and agnosic defects.
Motor problems in retarded children are, of course, part of
the general pattern of problems that the children encounter, and
for this reason the assessment of motor deficits independent of
the general condition is difficult. There is a category of children,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
FOOTEDNESS
189
however, who possess full mental faculties, who do not have any
provides standardized data for a somewhat broader range of
obvious neurological deficits (such as cerebral palsy), and who
foot motor categories is the Henderson revision of Stott's test
do show motor disturbances. These children are labeled—or
for motor impairment (Stott, Moyes, & Henderson, 1984). I
mislabeled—as clumsy (Henderson, 1982).
recommend this test as a promising tool for the assessment of
Here the interest is in foot movement in such children rather
foot movement. The test covers the age range of 5 to 12 years
than in the overall pattern of motor problems. Even in the most
and assesses, in four age bands, balance and variations of heel-
general discussion of clumsy children (e.g., Illingworth, 1968),
to-toe walking and jumping. The test lacks any items that assess
there are comments about problems in foot coordination, such
manipulative skill, and investigators might wish to add the ball-
as in jumping and hopping. In Hulme, Smart, and Moran's
rolling test to the battery of tasks. One aspect of foot perfor-
(1982) study of clumsy children, rolling a ball with the feet and
mance that has great ecological validity but is, for obvious rea-
skipping with the feet were among the better quantitative indi-
sons, rarely considered in the laboratory is the speed of running.
cators of motor problems. Lesny (1980) suggested that in con-
Perhaps a reasonable compromise is given by agility runs, in
genital children's clumsiness, examination for cerebellar func-
which an element of speed is combined with eye-foot coordina-
tion tends to yield vermian rather than neocerebellar signs. Al-
tion (Arnheim & Sinclair, 1975). Agility runs can be set up in a
though Lesny did not discuss foot and leg clumsiness, lesions of
limited space and allow time and error measures. Here, as in
the vermis (the midline region of the cerebellum) are associated
the ball-rolling test, normative data are lacking.
with difficulties with the proximal musculature and, specifi-
A general problem with available motor tests of foot behavior
cally, gait disturbances. A dissociation between hands and feet
is that although the tests are sensitive to developmental delays
can be seen in the atrophy of the cortex of the anterior cerebel-
useful in neuropsychological application, their construction is
lum, where marked disturbances of gait can be seen together
crude with regard to factors underlying foot control. For in-
with only very mild impairment of the upper extremities (Dow,
stance, impairments in the ball-rolling test might be due to
1958). Shaw, Levine, and Belfer (1982) in their investigation of
problems with the vestibular system, with visuo-motor integra-
the effects of clumsiness on self-esteem used such categories as
tion, or with control of muscle tension, to name some possible
falls easily, hopping in place, sideways tandem gait, and heel-
factors. Do the tests of heel-to-toe walking or tests of balance
toe alternate tapping.
test different components from those of the ball-rolling test? No
In motor tests for clumsiness, the foot test of ball rolling is,
evidence is available to answer these questions. Perhaps the ap-
according to one of the pioneers in investigation of clumsiness,
plication of factor-analytic or dual-scaling techniques can an-
Gubbay, one of the four motor tests that best discriminate be-
swer these questions. Another problem lies in the failure of tests
tween clumsy and control children (Gubbay, 1978). Even when
to formally dissociate volitionally guided movements from
a finer subdivision of clumsiness is made, foot movement re-
largely automated movements. Such a dissociation is hinted at
mains an important variable. Dare and Gordon (1970) divided
by casual observation of motor impairment. For instance, it is
clumsy children into three groups. Group 1 (specific develop-
not uncommon for a person who is considered clumsy to dis-
mental disorder) was the group with the mildest signs, but even
play remarkable motor control in some movements. For exam-
in this group, problems in running and hopping were clearly
ple, Beethoven, who was considered the greatest pianist of his
expressed. The aspects of leg movement are not always consis-
time (Schonberg, 1970) was notoriously clumsy: "Badly coordi-
tent. Reuben and Bakwin (1968), for instance, reported on a
nated, he could never learn to dance" (p. 92).
child who had normal gait and posture but was unable to hop.
In the examination by Rasmussen and Gillberg (1983) of chil-
I suggest that the discrepancy between clumsiness for some
movements and a high degree of skill for others can often be
dren with, in their words, "minor neuropsychological deficits"
resolved with reference to the nature of the movements in-
(p. 125), questions that related to walking, running, climbing,
volved. Although practically all skilled movement depends on
and hopping on one leg were among those that best discrimi-
an intact reflex repertoire (Easton, 1972), the degree to which
nated between these children and a control group.
This brief summary of some findings in this area is not meant
instance, a dancer or athlete cannot be proficient if there is a
to be exhaustive but does indicate rather well that foot testing
problem with the basic postural reflexes and their integration
should be an integral part of motor testing in neuropsychology.
with volitional behavior. If the dependency on postural and
One problem is the lack of consistent assessment methods
other inherent integrations is less, as in playing a musical instru-
learned motor behaviors depend on this repertoire differs. For
across studies, and another is that the evaluation of perfor-
ment, the relative contribution of the motor systems that com-
mance is rarely based on quantitative tests. Of the tests used
pose new movement and those that provide the postural sup-
that permit quantification, the ball rolling described by Gubbay
port can be ascertained. An example, again from the cerebellar
(1975) is by far the most common. Variations in procedure
literature, clarifies the point:
make comparisons across groups difficult, but the detailed description provided by Hulme, Smart, Moran, and Raine (1983)
should permit standardization. The ball-rolling test requires
subjects to dribble a ball around six objects laid out in a straight
line on the floor, and the time taken in maneuvering the ball
through this obstacle course is used as a measure. Penalties are
It is common to see a child with a medulloblastoma (in the posterior vermis) walk and maintain balance very poorly, and yet when
recumbent, so that the position of the body in space is maintained,
or when the body is well braced, fail to show any evidence of the
usual signs of cerebellar deficiency in the arms, legs or trunk. (Dow,
1958, p. 381)
exacted if the ball touches the objects. This test is sensitive because it tests fine manipulation as well as balance. Standardized
When considering the emphasis given lateral asymmetries, it
data are not available. The only test of foot performance that
may be surprising that in this section I have not commented on
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
190
MICHAEL PETERS
the assessment of foot asymmetries relative to neuropsychological testing. The literature has little to say on this issue. A report
by Strauss and Wada (1983), however, invites further investigation. They found in a sample of patients who had received a
brain injury before the age of 1 year a significantly reduced
prevalence of right-footedness, compared with a sample in
which brain damage had occurred after the age of 1 year.
If it is true that foot preference is generally less subject to
cultural pressures than hand preference, the clinical interest in
patterns of hand specialization and degree of lateral preferences
should also be extended to a similar analysis for the feet.
Summary
The literature shows quite clearly that humans are rightfooted, if by footed one means the preferential use of one foot
to act on and manipulate objects. By and large, footedness is
determined not so much by a category of motor movement as
by the extent to which a voluntary activity receives the weight
of attention. Seen in this way, the specialization for the right
foot can simply be seen within the larger context of a preference
for focusing on the limbs of the right body half in the realization
of a movement goal. The assessment of footedness in humans
is complicated by the interactions between hand and feet, particularly those observed in athletics, dance, and the operation
of machines and musical instruments. Assessment is further
complicated by the fact that the activities of the feet are, relative
to those of the hands, less complex and less often overlearned.
Asa result, the lateral bias toward one or the other side may not
be as compelling as for the hands.
I have suggested that the assignment of limb-task combinations should, ideally, acknowledge the primacy of the hands over
the feet and the right over the left in the average right-hander.
This review also shows that the situation for left-handers is far
from clear. Finally, I suggest that foot performance tests are useful adjuncts to neuropsychological testing because foot performance is a sensitive indicator of problems in motor control
References
Annett, M (1970). A classification of hand preference by association
analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 303-321.
Annett, M. (1978). A single gene explanation of right and left handedness and brainedness. Coventry, England: Lanchester Polytechnic.
Annett, M., & Turner, A. (1974). Laterality and the growth of intellectual abilities. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 44, 37-46.
Arnheim, D. D., & Sinclair, W. A. (1975). The clumsy child. St. Louis,
MO: C. V. Mosby.
Augustyn, C., & Peters, M. (1986a). Measures of foot preference and
performance. Unpublished manuscript.
Augustyn, C., & Peters, M. (1986b). On the relation between footedness
and handedness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 1115-1118.
Bakan, P., Dibb, G., & Reed, P. (1973). Handedness and birth stress.
Neuropsychologia, 11, 363-366.
Bell, C. (1870). The hand; its mechanism and vital endowments, as
evincing design and illustrating the power, wisdom, and goodness of
God. London: Bell & Daldy.
Bernstein, S.(1981). With your own two hands. New York: G. Schirmer.
Blau, A. (1946). The dominant hand (Research Monograph No. 5). New
York: American Orthopsychiatric Association.
Boschert, J., & Deecke, L. (1986). Handedness, footedness and finger
and toe movement-related cerebral potentials. Human Neurobiology,
5, 235-243.
Brodal, A. (1973). Self-observations and neuroanatomical considerations after a stroke. Brain, 96, 675-694.
Brunia, C. H. M., Voom, E J., & Berger, M. P. F. (1985). Movement
related to slow potentials. II. A contrast between finger and foot movements in left-handed subjects. Electroencephalography and Clinical
Neurophysiology, 60,135-145.
Bryden, M. P. (1982). Laterality. New York: Academic Press.
Burgoine, E., & Wing, L. (1983). Identical triplets with Asperger's syndrome. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 261-265.
Carnahan, H., Elliott, D., & Lee, T. D. (1986). Dual-task interference
between speaking and listening and a unipedal force production task.
Neuropsychologia, 24, 582-586.
Chapman, J. P., Chapman, L. J., & Allen, !. ). (1987). The measurement of foot preference. Neuropsychologia, 25, 579-584.
Chaurasia, B. D. (1976). La position "Palthi" et ses relations avec les
modes de croisement des mains et des bras. [The "Palthi" position
and its relation to the crossing of hands and arms]. L'Anthropologie,
80, 325-334.
Chibber, S. R., & Singh, I. (1970). Asymmetry in muscle weight and
one sided dominance in the human lower limbs. Journal of Anatomy
London, 106, 553-556.
Chibber, S. R., & Singh, I. (1972). Asymmetry in muscle and bone
weight in the lower limb of human foetuses. Journal of the Anatomical Society of India, 21, 33-39.
Clymer, P. E., & Silva, P. A. (1985). Laterality, cognitive ability and
motor performance in a sample of seven year olds. Journal of Human
Movement Studies, 11, 59-68.
Cohen, J. (1976). Handedness, speech pathology and hemispheric
asymmetry. Triangle, 15, 93-101.
Collins, R. L. (1977). Tbward an admissible genetic model for the inheritance of the degree and direction of asymmetry. In S. Harnad, R. W.
Doty, J. Jaynes, L. Goldstein, & G. Krauthamer (Eds.), Lateralization in the nervous system (pp. 137-150). New \brk: Academic Press.
Corballis, M. C. (1983). Human laterality. New \brk: Academic Press.
Corballis, M. C., & Morgan, M. ). (1978). On the biological basis of
human laterality: 1. Evidence for a maturational right-left gradient.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 261-269.
Coryell, J., & Cardinal!, N. (1979). The asymmetric tonic neck reflex
in normal full-term infants. Physical Therapy, 59, 747-753.
Dare, M. T, & Gordon, N. (1970). Clumsy children: A disorder of perception and motor organization. Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 12, 178-185.
Delacato, C. H. (1963). The treatment and prevention of reading problems. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Dow, R. S. (1958). The physiology and pathology of the cerebellum.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Downey, J. (1927). Types of dextrality and their implications. American
Journal of Psychology, 38, 317-367.
Easton, T. A. (1972). On the normal use of reflexes. American Scientist,
60, 591-599.
Eyre, M. B., & Schmeeckle, M. M. (1933). A study of handedness, eyedness and footedness. Child Development, 4,73-78.
Gardner, L. P. (1941). Experimental data on the problem of motor lateral dominance in feet and hands. Psychological Records, 5, 1-63.
Gardner, L. P. (1942). Experimental data on the problem of sensory
lateral dominance in feet and hands. Psychological Records, 5, 66124.
Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1984). Cerebral dominance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gould, G. M. (1908). Right-handedness and left-handedness. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Gretmer, W. F. (1947). A study of several design factors influencing hu-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
FOOTEDNESS
man efficiency in hand and foot operation of controls. American Psychologist, 2, 340.
Gubbay, S. (1975). The clumsy child. London: Saunders.
Gubbay, S. (1978). The management of developmental apraxia. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 20, 643-646.
Gubbay, S. S., Ellis, E., Walton, J. N., & Court, S. D. M. (1965). Clumsy
children, a study of apraxic and agnosic defects in 21 children. Brain,
88, 295-312.
Haefner, R. (1930). The relation between hand and foot tendencies of
children. Pedagogical Seminary, 38, 338.
Harris, A. J. (1958). Harris Tests of Lateral Dominance. New York:
Psychological Corporation.
Harris, L. J. (1983). Laterality of function in the infant: Historical and
contemporary trends in theory and research. In S. "Vfoung, S. J. Segalowitz, C. M. Corter, & S. Trehub (Eds.), Manual specialization and
the developing brain (pp. 177-247). New York: Academic Press.
Henderson, S. E. (1982). Concomitants of clumsiness in young schoolchildren. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 24, 448-
460.
Henderson, S. E. (1984). Motor skill development. In D. Lane & B.
Stratford (Eds.), Current approaches to Down's syndrome (pp. 187218). London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hulme, C, Smart, A., & Moran. G. (1982). Visual perceptual deficits
in clumsy children. Neuropsychologia, 20, 475-481.
Hulme, C, Smart, A., Moran, G., & Raine, A. (1983). Visual, kinaesthetic and cross-modal development: Relationships to motor development. Perception, 12,477-483.
Illingworth, R. S. (1968). The clumsy child. Clinical Pediatrics, 7, 539543.
Ingelmark, B. E. (1947). Uber die Langenasymmetrien der Extremitaten und ihren Zusammenhang mit der Rechts-Links-handigkeit
[Asymmetries in the length of the extremities and their relation to
right- and left-handedness]. Upsala Laekarefoerening Forhandlingar,
52, 17-82.
Irving, D., Rebeiz, J. J., & Tomlinson, B. E. (1974). The numbers of
limb motor neurons in the individual segments of the human
lumbo-sacral cord. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 21, 203212.
Kamptner, N. L., Comwell, K. S., Fitzgerald, H. E., & Harris, L. J.
(1985). Motor asymmetries in the human infant: Stepping movements. Infant Mental Health Journal, 6,145-157.
Kimura, D., & Davison, W. (1975). Right arm superiority for tapping
with distal and proximal joints. Journal of Motor Behavior, I, 199202.
Komai, X, & Fukuoka, G. (1934). A study of the frequency of lefthandedness and left-footedness among Japanese school children. Human Biology, 6,33-42.
Kovac, D. (1973). Measuring lateral preference on the basis of subjective data. Studio Psychologica, IS, 235-246.
Kovac, D., & Horkovic, G. (1970). How to measure lateral preference:
I. Studia Psychologica, 12,5-11.
Lesny, I. A. (1980). Developmental dyspraxia-dysgnosia as a cause of
congenital children's clumsiness. Brain Development, 2,69-11.
Levy, J., & Levy, J. M. (1978). Human lateralization from head to foot:
Sex-related factors. Science, 200, 1291 -1292.
Levy, J., & Levy, J. M. (1981). Foot-length asymmetry, sex, and handedness. Science, 212, 1418-1419.
Ludwig, W. (1970). Das Rechls-Links Problem im Tierreich und beim
Menschen [The right-left problem in the animal kingdom and in
man]. West Berlin, FRG: Springer-Verlag.
Malmo, R. B., & Andrews, M. L. (1945). A recording device for foottapping, with results from polyneuropathic subjects. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 247-252.
Mascie-Taylor, C., MacLarnon, A. M., Lanigan, P. M., & McManus,
191
I. C. (1981). Foot-length asymmetry, sex, and handedness. Science,
212, 1416-1417.
Means, L. W, & Walters, R. E, (1982). Sex, handedness and asymmetry
of hand and foot length. Neuropsychologia, 20,115-719.
Melekian, B. (1981). Lateralization in the newborn at birth: Asymmetry of the stepping reflex. Neuropsychologia, 19, 707-711.
Mongan, P. F. (1979). Tick toxicosis in North America. The Journal of
Family Practice, 8, 939-944.
Nachshon, I., & Denno, D. (1986). Birth order and laterality preferences. Cortex, 22, 567-578.
Nachshon, I., Denno, D., & Aurand, S. (1983). Lateral preferences of
hand, eye and foot: Relation to cerebral dominance. International
Journal of Neurosciences, 18, 1-10.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The
Edinburg Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
Orsini, D. L., & Satz, P. (1985). Pedal asymmetry and handedness.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 7,127-129.
Penfield, W, & Jasper, H. (1954). Epilepsy and the functional anatomy
of the human brain. Boston: Little, Brown.
Penfield, W, & Rasmussen, A. T. (1950). Cerebral cortex of man. A
clinical study of localization of function. New York: Macmillan.
Penfield, W., & Robertson, J. S. (1943). Growth asymmetry due to lesions of the postcentral cerebral cortex. Archives of Neurology and
Psychiatry, SO, 405-430.
Peters, M. (1981). Attentional asymmetries during concurrent bimanual performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
33A, 95-103.
Peters, M. (1983). Differentiation and lateral specialization in motor
development. In G. Young, S. J. Segalowitz, C. M. Corter, & S. Trehub
(Eds.), Manual specialization and the developing brain (pp. 141-159).
New York: Academic Press.
Peters, M. (1985). Constraints in the coordination of bimanual movements and their expression in skilled and unskilled subjects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 171-196.
Peters, M. (1986). [Motor screening tests for a population of Canadian
Indian children.] Unpublished raw data.
Peters, M. (1987). A nontrivial difference in motor performance between righthanders and lefthanders: Attention as intervening variable
in the expression of handedness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41,
91-99.
Peters, M., & Durding, B. M. (1979a). Footedness of left- and righthanders. American Journal of Psychology, 92, 133-142.
Peters, M., & Durding, B. M. (1979b). Lefthanders and righthanders
compared on a motor task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 11, 103-111.
Peters, M., & Petrie, B. F. (1979). Functional asymmetries in the stepping reflex of human neonates. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 33,
198-200.
Peters, M., Petrie, B., & Oddie, D. (1981). Foot-length asymmetry, sex,
and handedness. Science, 212, 1417-1418.
Pomerantz, A. P., & Harris, L. (1980). Are there sex-related asymmetries in foot size? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 675-678.
Porac, C., &Coren, S. (1981). Lateral preferences and human behavior.
New \brk: Springer-Verlag.
Raczkowski, D., Kalat, J. W, & Nebes, R. (1974). Reliability and validity of some handedness questionnaire items. Neuropsychologia, 12,
43-47.
Rasmussen, P., & Gillberg, C. (1983). Perceptual motor and attentional
deficits in seven-year-old children. Ada Paediatrica Scandinavica, 72,
125-130.
Reuben, R. N., & Bakwin, H. (1968). Developmental clumsiness. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 15,601 -611.
Rogers, L. J. (1980). Lateralization in the avian brain. Bird Behavior, 2,
1-12.
Rosenrot, P. (1980). Asymmetry of gait and lower limb dominance. Un-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
192
MICHAEL PETERS
published master's thesis, Univeisity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario,
Canada.
Ruisel, I. (1970). Crossed laterality of the upper and lower extremities.
Stadia Psychologies 17, 71-73.
Schonberg, H. C. (1970). The lives of the great composers. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Searleman, A. (1980). Subject variables and cerebral organization. Cortex, 16, 239-254.
Shaw, L. S., Levine, M. D., & Belfer, M. (1982). Developmental double
jeopardy: A study of clumsiness and self-esteem in children with
learning problems. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 3,191196.
Singh, I. (1970). Functional asymmetry in the lower limbs. Ada Anatomica. 77, 131-138.
Smith, L. G. (1917). A brief survey of right- and left-handedness. Pedagogical Seminary, 24, 19-35.
Stern, G., & Schilf, E. (1932). Uber Linksfussigkeit. [About left-footedness). Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Neurologic und Psychiatric, 139,
41-43.
Stetson, R. H. (1905). A motor theory of rhythm and discrete succession. II. Psychological Review, 12, 293-350.
Stott, D. H., Moyes, F. A., & Henderson, S. E. (1984). Manual of motor
impairment, Guelph, Ontario, Canada: Brook Educational Publications.
Strauss, E., & Wada, J. (1983). Lateral preference and cerebral speech
dominance. Cortex, 19,165-177.
Thelen, E., Ridley-Johnson, R., & Fisher, D. M. (1983). Shifting patterns of bilateral coordination and lateral dominance in the leg movements of young infants. Developmental Psychobiology, 16, 29-46.
Titchener, E. B. (1908). Lectures on the elementary psychology of feeling
and attention. New York: Macmillan.
Trehub, S. E., Corter, C. M., & Shosenberg, N. (1983). Neonatal reflexes: A search for lateral asymmetry. In G. Tibung, S. i. Segalowitz,
C. M. Corten & S. E. Trehub (Eds.), Manual specialization and the
developing brain (pp. 257-274). New York: Academic Press.
von Bonin, F. (1962). Anatomical asymmetries of the cerebral hemispheres. In V. B. Mountcastle (Ed.), Interhemispheric relations and
cerebral dominance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Yanowitz, P. G., Satz, P., & Heilman, K. M. (1981). Foot-length asymmetry, sex, and handedness. Science, 212,1418.
Zelazo, P. R. (1983). The development of walking: New findings and old
assumptions. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 99-137.
Received October 13,1986
Revision received March 27, 1987
Accepted July 15, 1987
•