DataPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The present study aims to determine the relation between handedness and ocular dominance in healthy young adults. The study included 100 healthy subjects of age group 18 to 25 years. By questionnaire method hand preference and eye preference was determined, and then ocular dominance was confirmed by Miles test. By questionnaire method, 97% were right handed and 84% were right eye dominant, 16% left eye dominant. The calculated Chi –Square value is 0.224 & is less than the table value (3.84) at 5% level of significance for one degree of freedom. No significant association was found between hand and ocular dominance. By Miles test, 75% were right eye dominant and 25% left eye dominant and Miles test was more significant for confirmation of ocular dominance than questionnaire method. 74% showed uncrossed hand ocular dominance and 26% showed crossed dominance. The calculated Chi –Square value is 0.115 & is less than the table value (3.84) at 5% level of significance for one degree of freedom. In conclusion, in the present study there is no significant relation between dominant eye and dominant hand. Eye hand dominance could serve as a factor in athletes or guiding young players on whether to hit left or right hand or to switch hit. Although the role of ocular preference in sports is inconclusive, evaluation of preferred eye, hand has been included in many sports vision evaluations. It may also be used in assessment of learning disabilities.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of
PHARMACEUTICAL
AND BIOMEDICAL
RESEARCH
Research article
Relationship between handedness and ocular dominance in healthy young
adults – A study
Jagadamba Aswathappa*, Karthiyanee Kutty, Nachal Annamalai
1Department of Physiology, Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Sri Devaraj Urs University, Tamaka, Kolar, Karnataka- 563101, India
Received: 04 May 2011 / Revised: 09 May 2011 / Accepted: 12 May 2011 / Online publication: 24 May 2011
ABSTRACT
The present study aims to determine the relation between handedness and ocular dominance in healthy young adults. The
study included 100 healthy subjects of age group 18 to 25 years. By questionnaire method hand preference and eye
preference was determined, and then ocular dominance was confirmed by Miles test. By questionnaire method, 97% were
right handed and 84% were right eye dominant, 16% left eye dominant. The calculated Chi –Square value is 0.224 & is less
than the table value (3.84) at 5% level of significance for one degree of freedom. No significant association was found
between hand and ocular dominance. By Miles test, 75% were right eye dominant and 25% left eye dominant and Miles test
was more significant for confirmation of ocular dominance than questionnaire method. 74% showed uncrossed hand ocular
dominance and 26% showed crossed dominance. The calculated Chi –Square value is 0.115 & is less than the table value
(3.84) at 5% level of significance for one degree of freedom. In conclusion, in the present study there is no significant
relation between dominant eye and dominant hand. Eye hand dominance could serve as a factor in athletes or guiding young
players on whether to hit left or right hand or to switch hit. Although the role of ocular preference in sports is inconclusive,
evaluation of preferred eye, hand has been included in many sports vision evaluations. It may also be used in assessment of
learning disabilities.
Key words: Hand dominance, Miles test, Ocular dominance
1. INTRODUCTION
Functional lateralization occurs in the paired organs of the
body, such as hands, legs and cerebral hemispheres [1].
Handedness is defined as the preferred hand used for a motor
activity or the hand most skillful at performing a task.
Approximately 90-95% is right handed. Left handedness has
been reported to vary with culture. There is higher incidence
of left handedness in variety of groups including epilepsy,
mental retardation, autism and dyslexia. The dominant hand
is expected to perform better than non dominant hand [2].
Ocular dominance was first described in 1953 by
Giovanni Battista Porta. Ocular dominance, sometimes called
eye dominance or eyedness was the tendency to prefer visual
input from one eye to the other [3]. The eye is a sensory
organ and has no conscious proprioception and vision in each
eye is represented bilaterally and equally in the occipital
lobes. People have no consciousness of using right or left
eye, as one is conscious of having left or right hand. One
does not see the world from left or right eye but from a single
so called cyclopean eye, which combines information from
both. Dominance wise eyes work as ones hand. They grab the
image with one eye and pass on to other a start to analyze the
object by refining like using their fingertips or balancing
objects with two hands [4].
Approximately two-thirds of the population is right eye
dominant, however neither eye is dominant in a small portion
of the population [5, 6]. Dominance does appear to change
depending upon direction of gaze due to image size changes
on the retinas [7]. Furthermore, the eye preferred for sighting
does not indicate handedness. This is not surprising since
each eye projects to both cerebral hemispheres whereas each
hand is represented mainly in the opposite hemisphere.
The present study aims to determine the relation between
handedness and ocular dominance in healthy young adults.
ISSN No: 0976-0350
Available online at
www.pharmscidirect.com
Int J Pharm Biomed Res 2011, 2(2), 76-78
*Corresponding Author. Tel: +91 9740620782, Fax: +91 8152 243006
Email: jagguravi@hotmail.com
©2011 PharmSciDirect Publications. All rights reserved.
Jagadamba Aswathappa et al., Int J Pharm Biomed Res 2011, 2(2), 76-78
77
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted at Sri Devaraj Urs Medical
College. Ethical clearance was obtained. The study included
100 healthy subjects, age ranging between 18-25 years.
Informed consent was taken. By questionnaire method hand
preference and eye preference were determined and ocular
dominance was again determined by Miles test (Fig.1).
Fig.1. Miles test (Reproduced with permission from www.archeryweb.org)
Hand dominance was ascertained by questionnaire
method, where each subject was asked, which hand he/she
prefers to write, draw, throw a ball, hold a tennis racket, tooth
brush, knife to cut things, match light it, eraser to erase,
remove the top card when one deals from a deck, holds the
thread when one threads a needle and holds a fly swatter. The
responses were left, right or either and number of right
responses were multiplied by 3; number of either response
were multiplied by 2 ; number of left responses were added
to these answers and interpretation was, 33-36 as strongly
right handed, 29-32 as moderately right handed , 25-28 as
weakly right handed and 24 as ambidextrous [15].
Eye preference questionnaire included which he/she uses
to look through a key hole, dark bottle, telescope and a rifle.
The scores were 1 for left, 2 for either, 3 for right in each
question and final score was graded as 11-12 as strongly right
eyed, 9-10 as mixed right eyed, 8 as ambi dexterous,6-7 as
mixed left eyed and 4-5 as strongly left eyed [15].
Ocular dominance was also determined by using Miles
test, where the subject is asked to extend both arms, and to
bring both hands together in front of the face to create a small
opening. Then with both eyes open, is asked to view a distant
object through the opening. The observer is asked to see the
object alternately closing the eyes or slowly to draw the
opening back to the head to determine which eye is viewing
the object. i.e., the dominant eye [16]. The results thus
obtained were statistically analyzed by Chi Square test and
tabulated.
3. RESULTS
By questionnaire method, 97% were right handed and
84% were right eye dominant, 16% left eye dominant. By
Miles test, 75% were right eye dominant and 25% left eye
dominant and Miles test was more significant for
confirmation of ocular dominance than questionnaire method.
The calculated Chi –Square value is 0.224 & is less than
the table value (3.84) at 5% level of significance for one
degree of freedom. No significant association was found
between hand and ocular dominance (Table 1). 74% showed
uncrossed hand ocular dominance and 26% showed crossed
dominance. The calculated Chi –Square value is 0.115 & is
less than the table value (3.84) at 5% level of significance for
one degree of freedom. No significant association was found
between hand and ocular dominance (Table 2).
Table 1
Ocular and hand dominance by questionnaire method
D
ominant eye
D
ominant hand
R
ight hande
d
L
eft hande
d
Total
R
ight eye 84 84
2
86
eft eye 16 13 1 14
Total 100 97 3 100
The calculated Chi –Square value is 0.224 and is less than the table value
(3.84) at 5% level of significance for one degree of freedom. No significant
association was found between hand and ocular dominance.
Table 2
Hand dominance and Ocular dominance by Miles test
D
ominant eye
D
ominant hand
R
ight hande
d
L
eft hande
d
Total
R
ight eye 75 73
2
75
eft eye
2
5
2
4 1
2
5
Total 100 97 3 100
The calculated Chi –Square value is 0.115 & is less than the table value
(3.84) at 5% level of significance for one degree of freedom. No significant
association was found between hand and ocular dominance.
Eye dominance by questionnaire method & Miles test was
compared as represented in Table 3. The calculated Chi –
Square value is 2.46 & is less than the table value (3.84) at
5% level of significance for one degree of freedom. No
significant association was found between hand and ocular
dominance. The pattern of hand ocular dominance was
classified as uncrossed dominance (that is right eye & right
hand or left eye & left hand dominance) or crossed
dominance (left eye & right hand or right eye & left hand).
Table 3
Comparison of eye dominance by questionnaire method & Miles test
E
ye dominance
R
ight eye
eft eye Total
Questionnaire 86 14 100
M
iles test 75
2
5 100
Total 159
4
1
2
00
The calculated Chi –Square value is 2.46 & is less than the table value (3.84)
at 5% level of significance for one degree of freedom.
4. DISCUSSION
Dominance is mainly influenced by genetics (8), and is
defined as physiological priority or preference by one
member of any bilateral pair of structures in the body when
Jagadamba Aswathappa et al., Int J Pharm Biomed Res 2011, 2(2), 76-78
78
performing various tasks. Handedness depends on
neurological inhibiting of the recessive hand so that the
dominant hand can develop the precise, corrective, rapid
movement without competition from the non-dominant hand.
People with right hand dominance use their right hand
primarily as the Worker Hand.
Few studies have investigated the relation between hand
and eye preference. About 10% of the general population has
left hand dominance. Ocular dominance was thought to be
related with hand dominance. Right eye dominance is much
more common than left eye dominance. Approximately 2/3
of the population is right eye dominant. The preferred eye
does not always correspond to the preferred hand and when
they are different the condition is referred as cross
dominance. Many theories have been proposed advantages of
having crossed eye and hand dominance in sports
performance. Miles test is more significant than
Questionnaire method for eye dominance. In the present
study there is no significant relation between dominant eye
and dominant hand. By Miles method 24% right hand
dominant people are left eye dominant ,66% left hand
dominant are right eye dominant, that is 26% show crossed
dominance. In questionnaire method 13% right hand people
are left eye dominant, 66% are left hand dominant are right
eye dominant, and 15% showed cross dominance.
The present study indicates that it is definitely far from
one to one relationship. In the present study, it is clear that
there are a significant number of people who have a dominant
right hand has dominant left eye. Dr Jonathan S in his study
on kart racing drivers has found similar results [9].
Portal JM, Romano PE, reported that pitchers in baseball
who were uncrossed eye hand dominance were slightly more
successful than crossed. While batters who were crossed eye
hand dominance were slightly more successful than
uncrossed. The pattern of eye hand dominance appears to be
related to athletic proficiency for base ball [10]. As
knowledge grows concerning the relations between ocular
dominance and patterns of eye hand dominance in sports like
cricket, golf, baseball, and one can guide an athlete to which
sport to concentrate on.
Dane S, Balci N has reported that the rates of left
handedness and left eyedness were higher in children with
autism compared to normal populations. Autism and early
language impairment may be associated with left handedness,
eyedness and nasal dominance [11].
In another study they have indicated that, it is possible
that the crossed preference may be partially the reason for
visual-spatial and constructive disturbances observed in
obsessive compulsive disorder [12]. Barbara H Connolly has
reported that mixed foot dominance and crossed eye
dominance are more common in children with learning
disabilities than in normal children [13]. In one more study,
they have shown that persons with mental handicaps have
prevalence rates of crossed dominance [14].
5. CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, in the present study there is no significant
relation between dominant eye and dominant hand. Eye hand
dominance could serve as a factor in athletes or guiding
young players on whether to hit left or right hand or to switch
hit. Although the role of ocular preference in sports is
inconclusive, evaluation of preferred eye, hand has been
included in many sports vision evaluations. It may also be
used in assessment of learning disabilities.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank, Dr. Vinutha Shankar
M.S, Professor, Department of Physiology, Dr. Ravi
Madhusudhana, Associate Professor, Department of
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Dr. Girish Bengalorkar,
Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Sri
Devaraj Urs Medical College, SDUU, Kolar, Karnataka for
their valuable guidance and support.
REFERENCES
[1] Cheng, C.Y., Yen, M.Y., Lin, H.Y., Hsia, W.W., Hsu, W.M., Invest
Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004, 45, 2856-2860.
[2] Cary, I., Adams, J., British Journal of Hand Therapy 2003, 8, 4-10.
[3] Chaurasia, B.D., Mathur, B.B.L., Acta Anat (Basel) 1976, 96, 301-305.
[4] Sharp-sighted.org 2008; Facial masking, Alignment & Dyslexia.0.3
Ocular Dominance. Available from http://www.sharp-sighted.org
[5] Ehrenstein, W.H., Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen, B.E., Jaschinski, W.,
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005, 243, 926-932.
[6] Reiss, M.R., Laterality 1997, 2, 7-16.
[7] Khan, A.Z., Crawford, J.D., Vision Res 2001, 41, 1743-1748.
[8] Colin J. Brackenridge, Behaviour Genetics 1982, 12, 319-325.
[9] Jonathan S. Pointer., Sports Vision Training 2006, 48-50.
[10] Portal, J.M., Romano, P.E., Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 1998, 13, 165-
166.
[11] Dane, S., Balci, N., Int J Dev Neurosci 2007, 25, 223-226.
[12] Marilena Occhini Siviero, Eliana Oliveira Rysovas, Yara Juliano, Jose
Alberto DelPorto, Paulo Henrique, Ferreria Bertolucci. Arq
Neuropsiquiatr 2002, 60, 242-245.
[13] Barbara H. Connolly., Physical Therapy 1983, 63, 183-187.
[14] Robinson, S.E., Block, S.S., Boudreaux, J.D., Flora, R.J., J Am Optom
Assoc 1999, 70, 563-570.
[15] Jackie. Freeshell.org 2006; Are you left handed? Eyedness
Questionnaire. Available from http:// Jackie.freeshell.org/who/
test_eye.htm
[16] Senol Dane, Kenan Gümüstekin., International Journal of Neuroscience
2002, 112, 1141 – 1147.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
  • C Y Cheng
  • M Y Yen
  • H Y Lin
  • W W Hsia
  • W M Hsu
Cheng, C.Y., Yen, M.Y., Lin, H.Y., Hsia, W.W., Hsu, W.M., Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004, 45, 2856-2860.
  • I Cary
  • J Adams
Cary, I., Adams, J., British Journal of Hand Therapy 2003, 8, 4-10.
  • B D Chaurasia
  • B B L Mathur
Chaurasia, B.D., Mathur, B.B.L., Acta Anat (Basel) 1976, 96, 301-305.
Facial masking, Alignment & Dyslexia
Sharp-sighted.org 2008; Facial masking, Alignment & Dyslexia.0.3
  • W H Ehrenstein
  • B E Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen
  • W Jaschinski
Ehrenstein, W.H., Arnold-Schulz-Gahmen, B.E., Jaschinski, W., Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005, 243, 926-932.
  • A Z Khan
  • J D Crawford
Khan, A.Z., Crawford, J.D., Vision Res 2001, 41, 1743-1748.
  • Colin J Brackenridge
Colin J. Brackenridge, Behaviour Genetics 1982, 12, 319-325.
Sports Vision Training
  • Jonathan S Pointer
Jonathan S. Pointer., Sports Vision Training 2006, 48-50.
  • J M Portal
  • P E Romano
Portal, J.M., Romano, P.E., Binocul Vis Strabismus Q 1998, 13, 165- 166.
  • S Dane
  • N Balci
Dane, S., Balci, N., Int J Dev Neurosci 2007, 25, 223-226.