Hand preference and cerebral dominance for some aspects of language processing are
hallmarks of human brain functioning. Yet, their mutual relationships, similar to
interrelations between hemispheric dominance for low-level sensorimotor control of
the hand and the representations of higher-order, skilled actions (praxis) still remain
unclear. Whereas in some accounts (Liepmann, 1900, 1908; Geschwind and Galaburda,
1985; Heilman, 1997; see also Goldenberg, 2013b) right handedness reflects (at least
in part) the functioning of the left-lateralized manual praxis system, evidence from
majority of left-handers weakens such a notion because they often represent praxis
skills in their motor non-dominant—left—hemispheres, too (Lausberg et al., 1999; Frey
et al., 2005; Goldenberg, 2013a; see also Gonzalez and Goodale, 2009; Grabowska et
al., 2012; Haberling and Corballis, 2015; Kroliczak et al., 2016; cf. Carey et al.,
2015). Although the putative links between praxis and language, and their interactions
with handedness, have been long considered (Dejerine and Andre-Thomas, 1912; Heilman
et al., 1973, 1974; McManus, 1985; Annett and Alexander, 1996; Meador et al., 1999),
more recent studies clarify their relationships (Króliczak et al., 2011; Vingerhoets
et al., 2013; Biduła and Króliczak, 2015; Goldenberg and Randerath, 2015; cf. Goldenberg,
2013b), further strengthening the idea that they are contingent on each other (Vingerhoets,
2014; Króliczak et al., 2018). Moreover, evidence from individuals with rarer forms
of brain dominance now supports the idea that there is a longstanding evolutionary
origin to the cerebral arrangement and distribution of both related and complementary
skills, e.g., praxis and language vs. attention (Grabowska et al., 1994; Corballis,
2003; Cai et al., 2013; Goldenberg, 2013b).
The primary goal of this Research Topic is to present new pieces of evidence on the
neural and functional organization of language and praxis, their links (or lack of
thereof) with handedness and low-level motor skills, as well as behavioral consequences
of their representations for other functions. Among the 12 contributing Original Research
Articles, the considered functions include short-term tactile learning of Braille
reading, visual word and number processing, and visuospatial discrimination. Yet,
because the neural underpinnings of these functions are often strongly lateralized
in the human brain, and may have common ancestry, their evolution and development
is discussed in two Hypothesis and Theory articles.
Evolution and Early Development of Cerebral and Behavioral Asymmetries
The evolution of language and tool manufacture is considered by Corballis in the context
of behavioral asymmetries that emerged in humans. Evidence is discussed that such
asymmetries must have developed in an independent manner, triggered by multi-genetic
sources, rather than a single overriding principle. It is also emphasized that representations
of language and tool-use skills are rather poorly correlated with handedness. The
relation of the individual development of hand preference to the critical development
of human basic sensorimotor and cognitive abilities is, nevertheless, assumed in Michel.
Based on earlier ideas that hand preference acquisition precedes unimanual object
manipulation, and that both these skills must precede role-differentiated bimanual
manipulation of objects, this contribution provides a description of an ideal paradigm
for testing their development and relationships. The importance of studying developmental
differences of cognitive skills across handedness is also emphasized.
Language Laterality, its Sources, and (in)Activity-Dependent Word Processing and Learning
Unique characteristics of atypical organization of language are considered by Biduła
et al. Whereas, most of atypical cases are indeed found in left-handers, they are
also present in ambidextrous and right-handed people (cf. Carey and Johnstone, 2014).
Indeed, Biduła et al. demonstrated that although group results indicate mirror-reversed
organization of language in atypical participants, evidence for this is less compelling
at an individual level of analysis. The relationships between language laterality
and handedness are also discussed by Schmitz et al., but now from the point of genetic
influences. Evidence is shown that handedness and language organization are complex
phenotypes that are ontogenetically independent. This report ends with conclusions
that genes involved in ontogenesis of handedness contribute primarily to structural
development, whereas genes underlying language laterality also contribute to the development
of other cognitive processes (but seem also associated with mental and neurological
disorders).
Given language-praxis links, certain kinds of actions, or inaction, could affect language
processing and learning. For example, changes in motor system functioning could flexibly
influence comprehension and acquisition of words (cf. Shebani and Pülvermuller, 2018).
An intriguing paper by Yasuda et al. demonstrates that while peripheral body states
influence action verb processing, in contrast to a strong embodiment view, constrained
arm posture affected responses to both manual and non-manual action verbs. The opposite
issue, that is, an impact of word processing on movement kinematics was investigated
by Rugani et al. They showed that automatic numerical processing affects action execution
in a context of kicking small balls with the index finger. Their participants responded
faster to small numbers while kicking the ball to the left, and vice versa. Notably,
Rugani et al. argue that similar paradigms could be used to study the impact of cognition
on action in an unbiased way.
Learning new vocabulary can be a challenge, especially in elder people. Yet, as Heim
and collaborators show (Heim et al.), a nap, in contrast to activity or even rest,
helps to consolidate language learning. While these results are less relevant to the
language-praxis debate, their translation to clinical settings for improvement of
speech-language therapy following brain injuries would be welcome. Still, in some
circumstances learning to read new words is not possible without the involvement of
certain kinds of actions, as in tactile learning of Braille (Debowska et al.). This
study established that even short-term tactile training can introduce functional and
structural changes in the fusiform gyrus, linked to visual processing of language,
including single word reading. This is yet another demonstration how language and
praxis can be related.
When Handedness Does Not Matter, Does it?
Some manual actions seem so simple that one would expect mainly contralateral control
of their performance. Yet, as Begliomini et al. show, grasping with the left (dominant)
hand in left handers is not controlled only by the right (contralateral) hemisphere.
They found increased connectivity with the left hemisphere parieto-frontal resources.
Notably, the right (non-dominant) hand is controlled as in right-handers. These outcomes
are consistent with a notion that hemispheric specialization for higher-order visuomotor
control does not depend on handedness (Gonzalez et al., 2006). Nevertheless, reports
on the impact of handedness, the used hand/eye, and/or other cognitive abilities on
performance of the line bisection task (Ochando and Zago), and left-right discrimination
(Constant and Mellet) reveal a more complex picture. In the line bisection task, performance
depends on integration of differently weighted visuospatial hemispheric mechanisms,
the motor component of the used hand, and individual laterality factors. When they
are congruent, the strongest behavioral biases are observed. As to left-right discrimination,
left-handers were found better at identifying their left hands and verifying “left”
propositions. Nonetheless, numerous interactions of other factors provide new insights
into the links between cognitive skills and left-right discrimination.
Functions Still To-be-Tested in Left-Handers
The last three papers focus entirely on specific aspects of motor control. They shed
new light on the impact of spatial alignment and response hand in processing visual
illusions (Scocchia et al.), competition between functional and situational affordances
(Roche and Chainay), and the influence of action mode on efficiency in rule- vs. plan-based
movements (Scheib et al.). Of course, the studied skills are less likely to depend
on linguistic representations. Yet, although some differences contingent on the responding
hand were suggested, they are less likely to emerge when directed at tools. As such,
these approaches can stimulate new research and reveal new findings of theoretical
interest for our debate.
Conclusions
This Research Topic highlights the findings on the relationships between manual skills
and language, and their putative links to handedness and associated motor functions.
Research showing both similarities and disparities in their organization in right-handed
and left-handed (but also ambidextrous) individuals is featured. The debate includes
the evolution and early development of cerebral and behavioral asymmetries, as well
as their genetic foundations. We hope that further discussions and research ideas
will emerge out of this work.
Author Contributions
GK conceived this work and drafted the editorial. CG and DC contributed intellectually
to this work, revised, and approved the draft for publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial
or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.