Next Article in Journal
Non-Axisymmetric Bouncing Dynamics on a Moving Superhydrophobic Surface
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Drop Vertical Jump Task Variation on Landing Mechanics: Implications for Evaluating Limb Asymmetry
Previous Article in Journal
Calogero-like Model without Rearrangement Symmetry
Previous Article in Special Issue
Relationship between Body Composition Asymmetry and Specific Performance in Taekwondo Athletes: A Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Symmetry
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/sym16010028
symmetry-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identifying the Level of Symmetrization of Reaction Time According to Manual Lateralization between Team Sports Athletes, Individual Sports Athletes, and Non-Athletes

by
Dana Badau
1,
Adela Badau
1,*,
Marko Joksimović
2,*,
Catalin Octavian Manescu
3,
Dan Cristian Manescu
3,
Corina Claudia Dinciu
3,
Iulius Radulian Margarit
3,
Virgil Tudor
4,
Ana Maria Mujea
4,
Adriana Neofit
5 and
Dragos Florin Teodor
6
1
Faculty of Physical Education and Mountain Sports, Transylvania University of Brasov, 500036 Brasov, Romania
2
Faculty for Sport and Physical Education, University of Montenegro, Cetinjski put 2, 81000 Podgorica, Montenegro
3
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Academy of Ecomony Sciences Bucharest, 010374 Bucharest, Romania
4
Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, National University of Physical Education and Sport, 060057 Bucharest, Romania
5
Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 800008 Galați, Romania
6
Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, Ovidius University of Constanta, 900470 Constanta, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Symmetry 2024, 16(1), 28; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16010028
Submission received: 28 November 2023 / Revised: 19 December 2023 / Accepted: 20 December 2023 / Published: 25 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Symmetry and Asymmetry in Sport Sciences)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present study aimed to investigate the impact of practicing sports activities on manual skills, focused on reaction time depending on manual laterality. The objectives of the study were to identify the differences in improving simple, optional, and cognitive reaction times in the manual executions of student athletes who practice team sports involving the manual handling of the ball (volleyball, basketball, handball) in comparison with student athletes who practice individual sports and with non-athletic students; to identify the differences regarding the reaction time of the right- and left-handed executions depending on the manual lateralization of the subjects (right- and left-handedness) between the three experimental samples: team sports group (TSG), individual sports group (ISG), and the group of non-athletes (NAG) through the use of computer tests. The study included 335 subjects who were divided into three groups: TSG with 102 subjects, ISG with 112 subjects, and NAG with 121 subjects. The subjects of the study were given five computer tests to evaluate three types of reaction time: simple reaction time (Start/Stop Test), choice reaction time (Check Boxes Test, Hit-the-dot Test), and time of cognitive reaction (Trail making Test part A and B). The results were analyzed regarding right- and left-handedness, as well as the execution hand (right hand or left hand) in solving the tests. The results of the study highlighted significant statistical differences between the three groups: TSG, ISG, and NAG. The best results were recorded by TSG in all tests, and the lowest by NAG. Statistically significant differences were also recorded between the executions with the dominant hand compared to the executions with the non-dominant hand in relation to right- and left-handedness. The study highlighted that the smallest differences in all the study groups were recorded in the simple reaction time test, where the differences between the right-handed and left-handed executions were the lowest, reflecting the best level of symmetrization of the motor executions.

1. Introduction

The present study focuses on identifying the differences in simple, choice, and cognitive reaction time between right- and left-handed executions in relation to manual laterality through the use of computer tests. Cerebral lateralization has a direct effect on the mobility of the upper limbs, which is realized through manual laterality, according to which the subjects are divided into right-handed, left-handed, and ambidextrous [1,2,3]. The research has shown that the better the level of hemispheric lateralization is defined and the more extensive the motor experience of the individual, the better the efficiency of the manual executions is embodied in reaction time, correctness of the movement, execution technique, efficiency of the movement, etc. [4,5,6,7]. Through the process of sports training or through the expansion of digital skills, it is possible to optimize the executions at the level of the right or left hand, as well as improve the level of symmetry of the executions based on the motor transfer from the dominant to the non-dominant segment [8,9,10].
The motor reaction time is inextricably dependent on the perceptual speed in performing a motor task, the speed of the decision or execution being conditioned by the level of complex mental processes, especially thinking [11,12]. The reaction time is dependent on the following factors: sensory modality (visual, auditory), sensory quality, stimulus intensity, surface or significance of the surface or the stimulating organ, the interval between the inception of the preparatory signal and the stimulus; the appearance or the moment of cessation of the stimulation, the similarity of the stimuli; the number of stimuli and responses; motivation of the subject in performing the experimental task, experience in performing reaction time tests [13,14].
The interrelationship between cognitive and motor skills influences the way and speed with which athletes make decisions based on which they order and manage their motor skills in order to make them more efficient. The evolution of technology has led to the development of digital and motor skills and implicitly the reaction time of some cognitive abilities [15,16,17]. Studies have shown that the stimulation of cognitive skills in relation to reaction time can be achieved by practicing physical and sports activities [18,19]. The reaction time is dependent on the nature of the stimulus (visual or auditory), on the manual lateralization, on the level of symmetrization of motor abilities and skills, and on the complexity of the task, including simple, optional, and cognitive reaction time [20,21,22]. The simple motor reaction time manifests itself in response to different stimuli embodied by a simple movement [23,24], while the choice or cognitive reaction time involves the selection or combination of some tasks in the shortest possible time in relation to the nature, complexity, and intensity of the stimulus [25,26,27].
The complexity of the physical and technical skills specific to sports games requires the athletes to handle the ball with one or both hands; passing or diving on different trajectories with force, with adequate speed, and with great precision; catching the ball launched with different trajectories and force, etc. [28,29,30]. The specifics of team sports require from the athletes a special technical level and a great ability to adapt physical and technical skills in ever-changing conditions imposed by the specifics of the game, the level of sports training, the play of teammates, and especially the play of opponents [31,32]. The efficiency of training, evaluation, and performance of players in training and competition conditions is conditioned by the ability to analyze and make cognitive decisions, by the speed of motor reactions, and by the efficiency of technical executions [33,34]. In individual sports, the reaction time in performing motor skills which do not involve manual execution is manifested at the level of motor reactions, the ability to analyze and decide, changes in direction, and the transformation and combination of movements [35,36,37,38]. Studies have shown that between cognitive abilities, neuromuscular reaction, and physical and technical abilities, there is an interrelationship that aims at the modality, efficiency, and speed of decision making and execution of physical and technical skills in order to increase efficiency in training and competitions, these aspects being essential in optimizing the process of sports training [39,40,41].
Our study approaches the analysis of reaction time from a new perspective, that of the use of a computer test in relation to three groups of students, one of which includes athletes who practice team games which require handling the ball (volleyball, basketball, handball), another including individual sports practitioners without manual practice or manipulation of objects, and another group of non-athlete students. We consider the computer tests used for the evaluation of simple, optional, and cognitive reaction times to be part of the current trends of expanding motor and manual digital skills and the implementation of technologies in human activities. Identifying the differences between right-handed and left-handed executions depending on manual laterality will facilitate the identification of both the differences and the degree of symmetrization of the reaction time at the level of manual skills.
The present study on the impact of practicing sports activities on manual skills focused on reaction time depending on manual laterality had the following objectives:
—
O1. Identifying the differences in terms of improving reaction times: simple, optional, and cognitive in the manual executions of students—athletes who practice team sports that involve manual handling of the ball (volleyball, basketball, and handball) compared to subjects who practice individual sports (which do not require handling an object) and compared to non-athlete subjects.
—
O2. Identifying the differences regarding the reaction time of right- and left-handed executions depending on the manual laterality (right- and left-handedness) between the three experimental groups—team sports group (TSG), individual sports group (ISG), and non-athletes group (NAG)—through the use of computer tests.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The research was carried out between April and November 2023. In order to establish the manual laterality (manual dominance), the dominant hands of the subjects, they were asked with which hand they catch and throw the ball, with which hand they brush their teeth, and with which hand they do most of manual actions. The study included 5 computer tests under ambidextrous execution conditions (with the dominant hand—right and with the non-dominant hand—left) for the evaluation of reaction time: simple, choice, and cognitive. All tests were applied under standardized conditions regarding the order in which they were performed, the number of trials, the equipment used, and the time interval of application (10–14 a.m.). The subjects of the study were trained on the experimental protocol. The order of application of the tests was Start/Stop Test [42], Check Boxes Test [43], Hit-the-dot Test [44], and Trail Making Test part A and B [45]. Before the start of the test sessions, the subjects of the study were instructed on the order of the tests and on the fact that they should focus on performing the tests as quickly as possible in order to evaluate the manual motor reaction time. Each test included 2 trials and the time or the best score achieved by each subject was taken into account. The trial sessions were preceded by a training session in which the subjects had the opportunity to adapt to the tests and the testing conditions. The tests were performed on the Samsung S9+ 12.4” tablet with touch screen.
This research was approved under no. 72/08.11.2023 of the Review Board of the Faculty of Physical Education and Mountain Sports from Transylvania University of Brasov, Romania. The participation in the study was voluntary, based on the informed consent of each participant; the study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All authors of this article contributed equally and all of them made an equal contribution to the first author.

2.2. Participants

The present cross-sectional study was attended by 335 subjects; students were divided into three groups as follows:
—
(TSG) the group of active athletes who practice a team game at performance level, totaling 102 subjects, structured according to sports as follows: 22 athletes—volleyball, 38 athletes—basketball, 42 athletes—handball; right-handed 88, left-handed 14.
—
(ISG) the group of athletes practicing individual sports, totaling 112 subjects, of which 42 athletes—athletic sports, 11 athletes—winter sports, 59 athletes—other individual sports; right-handed 100, left-handed 12.
—
(NAG) the group of non-athletes, made up of 121 students in the programs of economic sciences, physiotherapy, and other university study programs; right-handed 110, left-handed 11.
The characteristics of the entire group were as follows: mean age ± SD 22.31 ± 2.59, female 153 (45.6%), male 182 (44.4%); TSG: 45 female (44.1%), 57 male (55.9%); ISG: 47 female (41.9%), 659 male (48.1%); NAG: 43 female (35.5%), 78 male (64.5%). The criteria for the inclusion of these subjects in the study were as follows: active athletes practicing the sports selected for research with at least 6 years of experience, good health condition, between 20 and 24 years of age, students and full-time students. Exclusion criteria included interruption of sports activity for more than a month due to injuries or not completing the tests fully.

2.3. Measures

In the study, three variants of the reaction time were targeted, according to which the computerized tests were selected, as follows:
—
simple motor reaction time was tested with the Start/Stop Test;
—
choice reaction time was tested with the Check Boxes Test and Hit-the-dot Test;
—
cognitive reaction time was tested with the Trail Making test part A and B.
Start/Stop Test [42]. The test includes 5 attempts and their arithmetic mean is quantified. The test starts by pressing the “Start” button, after which the word “wait” appears, and when the word “push” appears, the subject must touch the “Stop” button as quickly as possible. The lowest average time achieved by the subject from the 2 trials is recorded for the study. The test is performed first with the right hand and then with the left hand.
Check Boxes Test [43]. It consists in touching with one finger as many circles as possible in 20 s. The test includes 100 circles arranged in 10 columns and 10 rows. The largest number of circles selected in 20 s between the 2 trials is quantified. The test is performed first with the right hand, then with the left hand.
Hit-the-dot Test [44]. The computerized test is performed by touching with your finger as many black dots as possible that appear in the empty circles; the dots appear randomly. The test includes a total of 60 circles arranged in 6 lines with 10 circles each; the test takes 30 s. The Hit-the-dot Test includes 2 trials and the highest number of points achieved is considered for the study. The test is performed first with the right hand and then with the left hand.
Trail Making Test—part A and B [45]. The Trail making Test—part A [46,47] includes 25 randomly arranged circles, and the subject must draw with his/her finger on the touch screen lines between numbers in ascending order (1-2-3 …25). The Trail making Test—part B consists in the random arrangement on the tablet screen of 25 circles that contain numbers from 1 to 13 and letters from A to L; the subject must draw lines with his/her finger so as to associate the numbers with the letters in ascending order (according to the model 1-A, ... 12-L, 13). The shortest time from the two trials is taken into account. The test is performed first with the right hand and then with the left hand.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data were processed using IBM-SPSS 24. Statistical parameters calculated were as follows: arithmetic mean (mean), standard deviation (SD), mean difference (ΔX), Student t-test and confidence coefficient (95% CI) with the two levels lower and upper, coefficient of variance (CV), and Skewness parameter. The verification of the normal distribution was carried out by means of the Skewness asymmetry statistical parameter; interpretation of the values was performed as follows: between −1 and +1 are considered excellent indicators of normality. The coefficient of variation (CV) reflects the dispersion of the data, respectively, the degree of homogeneity of the group. The interpretation was performed as follows: 0–10% high homogeneity, 10–20% relatively high homogeneity, 20–30% medium homogeneity, over 30% relatively heterogeneous population. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate if there were differences between the average values of the three study groups (TSG, ISG, NSG), in relation to the type of reaction time analyzed. The ANOVA analysis focused on the calculation of the following statistical parameters: sum of squares, mean squares, degrees of freedom (df), F—Fisher parameters, p—the level of statistical significance. The reference statistical significance value for this study was p-value < 0.05.

3. Results

In Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, we present the statistical analysis of the results of the three groups of the study, and in Table 4 and Table 5 are presented the analysis of variance (ANOVA) between the three groups for each test according to manual laterality (right- and left-handedness).
In all the tests, the subjects of the TSG group recorded better results when performing with the hand corresponding to the (dominant) manual side compared to the other performing hand. Analyzing the results in Table 1, it can be seen that the results recorded with the dominant hand were better than with the non-dominant one, in all tests. The arithmetic means of all tests fell between the lower and upper limits of the 95% CI for all tests depending on manual dominance. The differences between the executions with the right and the left hand were statistically significant, for the selected reference p-value < 0.05. Depending on the manual dominance, between the executions with the two hands, we can see that bigger differences were recorded for left-handedness in the tests: Check Boxes Test 6.65 points, Trail Making Test—part A—5.42 s. And in the other tests, the left-handedness executions recorded greater differences compared to right-handedness.
For the Start/Stop Test, the best time achieved was with the hand corresponding to the manual dominance, at 0.26 s. For the Check Boxes Test, the best score was achieved by the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 32.34 points. In the Check Boxes Test, the best score was achieved by the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 34.20 points. In the Hit-the-dot Test choice reaction time evaluation test, the best score was recorded for the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 34.20. In the Trail Making Test—part A, the best cognitive reaction time was achieved by the right-handed subjects when executing with the right hand, at 27.44 s. Finally, for the Trail Making Test—part A, the best score was also for the right hand, at 36.86 s. The values of the Skewness parameter reflect a normal distribution for all tests depending on the execution hand and manual lateralization, the values being between −1 and 1. Similarly, the coefficient of variation (CV) reflects a good and relatively good homogeneity in the majority of tests with the following exceptions for the Trail Making Test—part A and B for right-handed executions, where the homogeneity of the groups was average, the values falling between 20 and 30%.
Analyzing the results recorded by the ISG group, we found that for the Start/Stop Test, the best time achieved was with the left hand corresponding to left-handedness, at 0.30 s. For the Check Boxes Test, the best score was achieved by the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 30.63 points. In the Check Boxes Test, the best score was achieved by the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 34.20 points. For the Hit-the-dot Test, the best score was recorded by the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 31.82. For the Trail Making Test—part A, the best time was achieved by the right-handed subjects for execution with the right hand, at 29.47 s. Finally, for the Trail Making Test—part A, the best score was achieved by left-handed subjects for the executions with the left hand, at 39.55 s.
The differences between the arithmetic averages of the right-handed and left-handed executions, in all tests for right-handedness and left-handedness, were statistically significant. The differences in the arithmetic means for all tests, for both right- and left-handedness, fell between the two limits of the 95% CI. In all the tests, the subjects of the ISG group recorded better results in the executions with the hand corresponding to the manual dominance compared to the other execution hand (for example, for right-handedness with left hand execution, respectively, for left-handedness with right hand executions) (Table 2). The values of the Skewness parameter reflect a normal distribution for all the tests depending on the execution hand and the manual lateralization, the values being between −1 and 1. Similarly, the coefficient of variation (CV) reflects a good and relatively good homogeneity of all the tests depending on manual lateralization and hand of execution.
Analyzing the results recorded by the ISG group, we find that for the Start/Stop Test, the best time achieved was with the left hand corresponding to the left-handed subjects, at 0.31 s. For the Check Boxes Test, the best score was achieved by the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 29.67 points. In the Check Boxes Test, the best score was achieved by the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 34.20 points. For the Hit-the-dot Test, the best score was recorded by the right-handed subjects when performing with the right hand, at 29.31. For the Trail Making Test—part A, the best time was achieved by the right-handed subjects when executing with the right hand, at 32.77 s. Finally, for the Trail Making Test—part A, the best score was achieved by left-handed subjects for left-handed executions, at 40.36 s.
The tests regarding the simple, choice, and cognitive reaction time for the group of non-athletes highlighted the fact that the results with the hand corresponding to manual dominance were better than with the other hand. The differences between the arithmetic means for right-handed and left-handed executions were statistically significant for p-value < 0.05 for all tests related to manual dominance (right-handedness and left-handedness). The differences between the arithmetic means of the right-handed and the left-handed executions for all tests fell within the 95% of the CI limits (Table 3). The values of the Skewness parameter reflect a normal distribution for all the tests depending on the execution hand and the manual lateralization, the values being between −1 and 1. Similarly, the coefficient of variation (CV) reflects a good and relatively good homogeneity of all the tests depending on manual lateralization and execution hand, with a single exception in the Trail Making Test—part B in subjects with left manual lateralization in executions with the left hand, where values of 23.28% homogeneity were recorded, being medium.
The analysis of variance for all tests indicates statistically significant differences between the three study groups in all tests for the right-handed subjects. In all tests, the differences between the arithmetic averages between TSG and ISG, respectively, and NAG were in favor of TSG, which recorded better reaction times for both right-handed and left-handed executions. Analyzing the differences between the arithmetic averages recorded between ISG and NAG, it is found that ISG had better reaction times than NAG.
For the Start/Stop Test, the biggest difference between the groups was recorded for right-handed executions between NAG and TSG, at 0.08 s., and for left-handed executions, at 0.05, also in favor of TSG compared to NAG. For the Check Boxes Test, the biggest difference was between TSG and NAG, in favor of TSG for executions with both hands. For the Hit-the-dot Test, the biggest difference was −4.89 for right-handed execution between TSG and NAG, respectively, with the left hand, at 1.46 points, between ISG and TSG. For the Trail making Test part A and B, the biggest differences were recorded for the right hand between TSG and NAG, with a single exception for part A in the executions with the right hand, where a difference in arithmetic averages of 6.27 s was recorded between ISG and TSG (Table 4).
In all tests, the differences between the arithmetic averages between TSG and ISG, respectively, and NAG were in favor of TSG, which recorded better reaction times for right-handed executions, as well as for left-handed executions. Analyzing the differences between the arithmetic averages recorded between ISG and NAG, it is found that ISG had better reaction times than NAG. Analyzing the ANOVA results, we observe statistically significant differences between the three groups of the study in all tests for the left-handed subjects. In most of the tests, the biggest differences between the arithmetic averages for right- or left-handed executions were recorded between TSG and NAG, in favor of TSG, the exceptions being the Hit-the-dot Test for right-handed executions, where the biggest difference was between TSG and ISG, at 3.48, respectively, for the Trail Making Test—part A, as well as for right-handed executions, at −2.39 s, between TSG and ISG (Table 5).

4. Discussion

Our study sought to identify the differences regarding the manual reaction time depending on the manual laterality through computer tests between three categories of students: a group of sports students from team games with a ball, a second group of athletes from individual sports, and a third group of non-athletes. The second aim of the present study aimed to identify differences regarding the reaction time of right- and left-handed executions depending on manual dominance (right- and left-handedness) between the three experimental groups: team sports group (TSG), individual sports group (ISG), and non-athletes group (NAG). The results of the study highlighted the fact that the athletes who practice team games with a ball (volleyball, handball, and basketball) have a simple, optional, and cognitive reaction time better than the group of athletes who practice individual sports and also than the group of non-athletes. Maneuvering an object determines the expansion of the manual handling skills and implicitly the reaction time of the athletes compared to athletes who do not handle objects manually or compared to non-athletes. Also, in the study, we identified statistically significant differences between the executions with the corresponding dominant hand compared to the other hand.
The results are in line with the evidence identified in previous studies in which the superiority in the manual execution of various motor actions of athletes compared to non-athletes was highlighted [48,49,50,51]. The results of the study contribute to expanding the level of knowledge regarding how the hemispheric lateralization manifested in manual laterality and motor experience influence the manual motor skills evaluated through computer tests, between different athletes and non-athletes [52,53,54,55]. Numerous studies have focused on identifying the reaction time in performing different motor tasks in relation to manual laterality [56,57,58]. A series of studies aimed at identifying the differences between athletes and non-athletes; thus, in a study carried out on a group of football players compared to non-athletes, significant differences were identified regarding the reaction time of moving and hitting the ball [54,55,59].
Studies carried out on different categories of subjects have highlighted differences in the performance of digital or manual skills [60,61,62]. The evaluation of different types of reaction times was carried out by means of tests or computer games and highlighted differences between the executions with the dominant and non-dominant hand [63,64,65]; between women and men [66,67]; between different categories of athletes depending on the sport they practice [68,69,70,71,72,73,74]; the type of visual or auditory stimulus in relation to the manual or foot reaction time [71,73].
We believe that the approach to such a complex topic as the one regarding the identification of the differences regarding the reaction time in different categories of athletes and non-athletes will have to be approached from an interdisciplinary perspective [75,76,77]. Numerous sports activities involve symmetrical and asymmetrical manual executions, with the left or right hand, and optimizing the symmetrization process of executions can contribute to improving motor performance. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the improvement and diversification of training methods aimed at digital or manual skills of reaction times contribute to the expansion of human motor and cognitive potentialities [21,78,79]. The studies highlighted the link between the lateralization of the brain manifested by the structural and functional differences between the right and left hemispheres and the lateralization of executions at the manual level between right-handed and left-handed executions [4,5,8,24]. The impact of manual lateralization in the performance of motor skills is influenced by motor control, which aims at the activity of the brain regulating movements of voluntary muscle activities. [13,14,21]. Manual lateralization was also approached from the perspective of neuroscience, which studies the connection between the functionality of the brain and the biological aspects of human performance and behavior [80,81,82]. Recent studies have demonstrated that there are close links between motor and sensory functions, which generate predictions for the formation of new motor experiences with different stimuli and in different training conditions [83,84]. The connection between the complexity of the brain activity, the reliability of the motor control of the movements, and the variety of conditions and training methodologies specific to sports training lead to the increase in performance and the modeling of behaviors in relation to the sports objectives [85,86]. We believe that the interdisciplinary approach to the effectiveness of manual lateralization in the performance of motor skills focused on reaction time will facilitate the complex understanding of the interaction of neuroscience, motor control, and sports science in making sports behaviors more efficient.
The strong points of the study consist in the large number of subjects involved in the study; dividing the subjects into three groups depending on the activity and the type of sport practiced (team sports, individual sports) and the comparison with a group of non-athletes; comparative analysis of the results related to the typology of groups; the analysis of the results depending on the manual laterality and execution hand; computer test use. Limitations of the study include the the relatively small number of subjects with left manual laterality and the fact that the gender differences regarding the manifestation level of simple, choice, or cognitive reaction time were not analyzed; the inclusion in the study only of the subjects who were between 20 and 24 years old due to the age of the students; the fact that the present study only considered the manual reaction time and not the reaction time at the foot level, and the fact that the subjects included in the TSG practiced only three team sports (handball, basketball, and volleyball), and other team sports were not taken into account due to the small number of active student athletes; the fact that a comparative analysis of the results was not carried out according to the type of sports practiced, both between the three sports games and between the three categories of individual sports.

5. Conclusions

Among the three types of reaction times targeted in the study, we found that the smallest differences were recorded in the simple reaction time test, where the differences between right-handed and left-handed executions were the lowest, reflecting the best level of symmetrization of motor executions. Also, regarding the types of reactions, simple, choice, and cognitive, the biggest differences were recorded between the group of athletes practicing ball games (TSG) and the group of non-athletes (NAG). The results of the computerized tests of the reaction time of the subjects practicing team sports in which a ball is handled were better than those of the subjects practicing individual sports without manual handling of an object. The results for the dominant hand were better compared to the results from the non-dominant hand in all tests. The theoretical and practical implications of this study will facilitate the expansion of the level of interdisciplinary knowledge and optimization of the training process aimed at reaction time in performing motor or technical skills depending on the typology and the characteristics of the practiced sport, and training and competition conditions in order to improve athletes’ performances in relation to the specifics of the sport.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.B., A.B., M.J., C.O.M., D.C.M., C.C.D., I.R.M., V.T., A.M.M., A.N. and D.F.T.; methodology, D.B., A.B., M.J., C.O.M., D.C.M., C.C.D., I.R.M., V.T., A.M.M., A.N. and D.F.T.; validation, D.B., A.B., M.J., C.O.M., D.C.M., C.C.D., I.R.M., V.T., A.M.M., A.N. and D.F.T.; formal analysis, D.B., A.B., M.J., C.O.M., D.C.M., C.C.D., I.R.M., V.T., A.M.M., A.N. and D.F.T.; writing—original draft preparation, D.B., A.B., M.J., C.O.M., D.C.M., C.C.D., I.R.M., V.T., A.M.M., A.N. and D.F.T.; writing—review and editing, D.B., A.B., M.J., C.O.M., D.C.M., C.C.D., I.R.M., V.T., A.M.M., A.N. and D.F.T.; visualization, D.B., A.B., M.J., C.O.M., D.C.M., C.C.D., I.R.M., V.T., A.M.M., A.N. and D.F.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This research was approved under no. 72/08.11.2023 of the Review Board of the Faculty of Physical Education and Mountain Sports from Transylvania University of Brasov, Romania, and the study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

The participation in the study was voluntary, based on the informed consent of each participant.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Thomas, N.A.; Manning, R.; Saccone, E.J. Left-handers know what’s left is right: Handedness and object affordance. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0218988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gutwinski, S.; Löscher, A.; Mahler, L.; Kalbitzer, J.; Heinz, A.; Bermpohl, F. Understanding left-handedness. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2011, 108, 849–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Corey, D.M.; Hurley, M.M.; Foundas, A.L. Right and left handedness defined: A multivariate approach using hand preference and hand performance measures. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol. 2001, 14, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Güntürkün, O.; Ströckens, F.; Ocklenburg, S. Brain Lateralization: A Comparative Perspective. Physiol. Rev. 2020, 100, 1019–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Duboc, V.; Dufourcq, P.; Blader, P.; Roussigné, M. Asymmetry of the Brain: Development and Implications. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2015, 49, 647–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Papadatou-Pastou, M.; Ntolka, E.; Schmitz, J.; Martin, M.; Munafò, M.R.; Ocklenburg, S.; Paracchini, S. Human handedness: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 146, 481–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kunita, K.; Fujiwara, K. Influence of sports experience on distribution of pro-saccade reaction time under gap condition. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2022, 41, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Loffing, F.; Sölter, F.; Hagemann, N. Left preference for sport tasks does not necessarily indicate left-handedness: Sport-specific lateral preferences, relationship with handedness and implications for laterality research in behavioural sciences. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gursoy, R. Effects of left- or right-hand preference on the success of boxers in Turkey. Br. J. Sports Med. 2009, 43, 142–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Loffing, F.; Schorer, J. Handedness and Relative Age in International Elite Interactive Individual Sports Revisited. Front. Sports Act. Living 2021, 3, 662203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sutter, K.; Oostwoud Wijdenes, L.; van Beers, R.J.; Medendorp, W.P. Movement preparation time determines movement variability. J. Neurophysiol. 2021, 125, 2375–2383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Scanlan, A.; Humphries, B.; Tucker, P.S.; Dalbo, V. The influence of physical and cognitiv factors on reactie agility performance in men basketball players. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 32, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chen, Y.L.; Sie, C.C. Design Factors Affecting the Reaction Time for Identifying Toilet SiNAG: A Preliminary Study. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2016, 122, 636–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Draheim, C.; Mashburn, C.A.; Martin, J.D.; Engle, R.W. Reaction time in differential and developmental research: A review and commentary on the problems and alternatives. Psychol. Bull. 2019, 145, 508–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Rattray, B.; Smee, D. Exercise improves reaction time without compromising accuracy in a novel easy-to-administer tablet-based cognitiv task. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2013, 16, 567–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Al-Thaqib, A.; Al-Sultan, F.; Al-Zahrani, A.; Al-Kahtani, F.; Al-Regaiey, K.; Iqbal, M.; Bashir, S. Brain Training Games Enhance Cognitiv Function in Healthy Subjects. Med. Sci. Monit. Basic Res. 2018, 24, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Villa-Sánchez, B.; Emadi Andani, M.; Cesari, P.; Fiorio, M. The effect of motor and cognitiv placebos on the serial reaction time task. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2021, 53, 2655–2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Brisswalter, J.; Arcelin, R.; Audiffren, M.; Delignières, D. Influence of physical exercise on simple reaction time: Effect of physical fitness. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1997, 85 Pt 1, 1019–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vidal, F.; Meckler, C.; Hasbroucq, T. Basics for sensorimotor information processing: Some implications for learning. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Serrien, D.J.; Sovijärvi-Spapé, M.M.; Farnsworth, B. Bimanual control processes and the role of handedness. Neuropsychology 2012, 26, 802–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tarkka, I.M.; Hautasaari, P. Motor Action Execution in Reaction-Time Movements: Magnetoencephalographic Study. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2019, 98, 771–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Lakhani, B.; Bolton, D.A.; Miyasike-Dasilva, V.; Vette, A.H.; McIlroy, W.E. Speed of processing in the primary motor cortex: A continuous theta burst stimulation study. Behav. Brain Res. 2014, 261, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ciuffreda, K.J. Simple eye-hand reaction time in the retinal periphery can be reduced with training. Eye Contact Lens 2011, 37, 145–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Barthelemy, S.; Boulinguez, P. Manual reaction time asymmetries in human subjects: The role of movement planning and attention. Neurosci. Lett. 2001, 315, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Davranche, K.; Audiffren, M.; Denjean, A. A distributional analysis of the effect of physical exercise on a choice reaction time task. J. Sports Sci. 2006, 24, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kagerer, F.A. Asymmetric interference in left-handers during bimanual movements reflects switch in lateralized control characteristics. Exp. Brain Res. 2016, 234, 1545–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Quoilin, C.; Fievez, F.; Duque, J. Preparatory inhibition: Impact of choice in reaction time tasks. Neuropsychologia 2019, 129, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Martin-Niedecken, A.L.; Bucher, V.; Adcock, M.; de Bruin, E.D.; Schättin, A. Impact of an exergame intervention on cognitive-motor functions and training experience in young team sports athletes: A non-randomized controlled trial. Front. Sports Act. Living 2023, 5, 1170783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Čović, N.; Čaušević, D.; Alexe, C.I.; Rani, B.; Dulceanu, C.R.; Abazović, E.; Lupu, G.S.; Alexe, D.I. Relations between specific athleticism and morphology in young basketball players. Front. Sports Act. Living 2023, 5, 1276953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Čaušević, D.; Čović, N.; Abazović, E.; Rani, B.; Manolache, G.M.; Ciocan, C.V.; Zaharia, G.; Alexe, D.I. Predictors of Speed and Agility in Youth Male Basketball Players. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Silva, A.F.; Ramirez-Campillo, R.; Sarmento, H.; Afonso, J.; Clemente, F.M. Effects of Training Programs on Decision-Making in Youth Team Sports Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 663867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Farley, J.B.; Stein, J.; Keogh, J.W.L.; Woods, C.T.; Milne, N. The Relationship Between Physical Fitness Qualities and Sport-Specific Technical Skills in Female, Team-Based Ball Players: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. Open 2020, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McGrath, R.L.; Kantak, S.S. Reduced asymmetry in motor skill learning in left-handed compared to right-handed individuals. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2016, 45, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Négyesi, J.; Négyesi, P.; Hortobágyi, T.; Sun, S.; Kusuyama, J.; Kiss, R.M.; Nagatomi, R. Handedness did not affect motor skill acquisition by the dominant hand or interlimb transfer to the non-dominant hand regardless of task complexity level. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 18181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Janicijevic, D.; Garcia-Ramos, A. Feasibility of Volitional Reaction Time Tests in Athletes: A Systematic Review. Motor Control 2022, 26, 291–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Tønnessen, E.; Haugen, T.; Shalfawi, S.A. Reaction time aspects of elite sprinters in athletic world championships. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 885–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Elbadry, N.; Hamza, A.; Pietraszewski, P.; Alexe, D.I.; Lupu, G. Effect of the French Contrast Method on Explosive Strength and Kinematic Parameters of the Triple Jump among Female College Athletes. J. Hum. Kinet. 2019, 69, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Dragos, O.; Alexe, D.I.; Ursu, E.V.; Alexe, C.I.; Voinea, N.L.; Haisan, P.L.; Panaet, A.E.; Albina, A.M.; Monea, D. Training in Hypoxia at Alternating High Altitudes Is a Factor Favoring the Increase in Sports Performance. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Tzourio-Mazoyer, N.; Zago, L.; Cochet, H.; Crivello, F. Development of handedness, anatomical and functional brain lateralization. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2020, 173, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Popowczak, M.; Cichy, I.; Rokita, A.; Domaradzki, J. The Relationship Between Reactie Agility and Change of Direction Speed in Professional Female Basketball and Handball Players. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 708771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Heppe, H.; Kohler, A.; Fleddermann, M.T.; Zentgraf, K. The Relationship between Expertise in Sports, Visuospatial, and Basic Cognitive Skills. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Start/Stop Test. Available online: https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/reacttime.html (accessed on 12 February 2023).
  43. Check Boxes Test. Available online: https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/boxes.html (accessed on 12 February 2023).
  44. Hit-the-Dot Test. Available online: https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/java/dottime.html (accessed on 12 February 2023).
  45. Trail Making Test Part A and, B. Available online: https://www.center-tbi.eu/files/approved-translations/Romanian/ROMANIAN_TMT.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2023).
  46. Badau, D.; Baydil, B.; Badau, A. Differences among Three Measures of Reaction Time Based on Hand Laterality in Individual Sports. Sports 2018, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sanchez-Cubillo, I.; Perianez, J.A.; Adrover-Roig, D.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, J.M.; Rios-Lago, M.; Tirapu, J.; Barceló, F. Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2009, 15, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kaluga, E.; Straburzynska-Lupa, A.; Rostkowska, E. Hand-eye coordination, movement reaction time and hand tactile sensitivity depending on the practiced sports discipline. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2020, 60, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Paul, D.J.; Gabbett, T.J.; Nassis, G.P. Agility in Team Sports: Testing, Training and Factors Affecting Performance. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 421–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Muntianu, V.A.; Abalașei, B.A.; Nichifor, F.; Dumitru, I.M. The Correlation between Psychological Characteristics and Psychomotor Abilities of Junior Handball Players. Children 2022, 9, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Badau, D.; Badau, A. Optimizing Reaction Time in Relation to Manual and Foot Laterality in Children Using the Fitlight Technological Systems. Sensors 2022, 22, 8785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Olex-Zarychta, D.; Raczek, J. The relationship of movement time to hand-foot laterality patterns. Laterality 2008, 13, 439–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Antonova, I.; van Swam, C.; Hubl, D.; Dierks, T.; Griskova-Bulanova, I.; Koenig, T. Reaction Time in a Visual 4-Choice Reaction Time Task: ERP Effects of Motor Preparation and Hemispheric Involvement. Brain Topogr. 2016, 29, 491–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gutnik, B.; Lyakh, V.; Gierczuk, D.; Nash, D. Computerized and fingertip measures of reaction time compared in individuals. Homo 2016, 67, 492–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jha, R.K.; Thapa, S.; Kasti, R.; Nepal, O. Influence of Body Mass Index, Handedness and Gender on Ruler Drop Method Reaction Time among Adults. J. Nepal. Health Res. Counc. 2020, 18, 108–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Dexheimer, B.; Przybyla, A.; Murphy, T.E.; Akpinar, S.; Sainburg, R. Reaction time asymmetries provide insight into mechanisms underlying dominant and non-dominant hand selection. Exp. Brain Res. 2022, 240, 2791–2802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Peng, Z.; Xu, L.; Wang, H.; Song, T.; Shao, Y.; Liu, Q.; Weng, X. The Lateralization of Spatial Cognition in Table Tennis Players: Neuroplasticity in the Dominant Hemisphere. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bhabhor, M.K.; Vidja, K.; Bhanderi, P.; Dodhia, S.; Kathrotia, R.; Joshi, V. A comparative study of visual reaction time in table tennis players and healthy controls. Indian. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2013, 57, 439–442. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  59. Romeas, T.; Faubert, J. Soccer athletes are superior to non-athletes at perceiving soccer-specific and non-sport specific human biological motion. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Eckner, J.T.; Kutcher, J.S.; Richardson, J.K. Between-seasons test-retest reliability of clinically measured reaction time in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletes. J. Athl. Train. 2011, 46, 409–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Deary, I.J.; Liewald, D.; Nissan, J. A free, easy-to-use, computer-based simple and four-choice reaction time programme: The Deary-Liewald reaction time task. Behav. Res. Methods 2011, 43, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Schatz, P.; Ybarra, V.; Leitner, D. Validating the Accuracy of Reaction Time Assessment on Computer-Based Tablet Devices. Assessment 2015, 22, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Burke, D.; Linder, S.; Hirsch, J.; Dey, T.; Kana, D.; Ringenbach, S.; Schindler, D.; Alberts, J. Characterizing Information Processing With a Mobile Device: Measurement of Simple and Choice Reaction Time. Assessment 2017, 24, 885–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nisiyama, M.; Ribeiro-do-Valle, L.E. Relative performance of the two hands in simple and choice reaction time tasks. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2014, 47, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hiraoka, K.; Igawa, K.; Kashiwagi, M.; Nakahara, C.; Oshima, Y.; Takakura, Y. The laterality of stop and go processes of the motor response in left-handed and right-handed individuals. Laterality 2018, 23, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Main, J.C.; Carey, D.P. One hand or the other? Effector selection biases in right and left handers. Neuropsychologia 2014, 64, 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kaur, M.; Nagpal, S.; Singh, H.; Suhalka, M.L. Effect of dual task activity on reaction time in males and females. Indian. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2014, 58, 389–394. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  68. Bakar, Y.; Tuğral, A.; Özel, A.; Altuntaş, Y.D. Comparison of a 12-Week Whole-Body Exergaming Program on Young Adults: Differentiation in Flexibility, Muscle Strength, Reaction Time, and Walking Speed Between Sexes. Clin. Nurs. Res. 2020, 29, 424–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Nagai, T.; Schilaty, N.D.; Bates, N.A.; Bies, N.J.; McPherson, A.L.; Hewett, T.E. High school female basketball athletes exhibit decreased knee-specific choice visual-motor reaction time. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports. 2021, 31, 1699–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Doğan, B. Multiple-choice reaction and visual perception in female and male elite athletes. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2009, 49, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zemková, E.; Vilman, T.; Kováčiková, Z.; Hamar, D. Reaction time in the agility test under simulated competitive and noncompetitive conditions. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 3445–3449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gautam, Y.; Bade, M. Effect of Auditory Interference on Visual Simple Reaction Time. Kathmandu Univ. Med. J. 2017, 15, 329–331. [Google Scholar]
  73. Jain, A.; Bansal, R.; Kumar, A.; Singh, K.D. A comparative study of visual and auditory reaction times on the basis of gender and physical activity levels of medical first year students. Int. J. Appl. Basic Med. Res. 2015, 5, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Drugau, S.; Balint, L.; Mijaica, R. Self-Perception of Skills Specific to Professional Development in Physical Education and Sports. Bull. Transilv. Univ. Braş. 2022, 15, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mocanu, G.D. Analysis of differences in Muscle Power for female university students majoring in sports according to BMI levels. Balneo PRM Res. J. 2023, 14, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Buzescu, R.; Nechita, F.; Cioroiu, S.G. The Relationship between Neuromuscular Control and Physical Activity in the Formation of the Visual-Psychomotor Schemes in Preschools. Sensors 2021, 21, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Alexe, C.I.; Alexe, D.I.; Mareş, G.; Tohănean, D.I.; Turcu, I.; Burgueño, R. Validity and reliability evidence for the Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire with Romanian professional athletes. PeerJ 2022, 10, e12803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Verdonck, S.; Tuerlinckx, F. Factoring out nondecision time in choice reaction time data: Theory and implications. Psychol. Rev. 2016, 123, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Goble, D. Validity of using reaction time as a basis for determining motor laterality. J. Neurophysiol. 2007, 97, 1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Kreutzer, A.K. The use of integrated behavioural z-scoring in behavioural neuroscience—A perspective article. J. Neurosci. Methods 2023, 384, 109751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sanger, T.D. Basic and Translational Neuroscience of Childhood-Onset Dystonia: A Control-Theory Perspective. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2018, 41, 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Scholz, F.; Gumbsch, C.; Otte, S.; Butz, M.V. Inference of affordances and active motor control in simulated agents. Front. Neurorobot. 2022, 16, 881673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wilson, R.I.; du Lac, S. Sensory and motor systems. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2011, 21, 517–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Li, K.Z.; Lindenberger, U. Relations between aging sensory/sensorimotor and cognitive functions. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2002, 26, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Adam, J.J.; Van Gerven, P.W.M. Proactive motor control within and between hands: Effects of age, motor set, and cue type. Acta Psychol. 2021, 212, 103214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Fuglevand, A.J. Mechanical properties and neural control of human hand motor units. J. Physiol. 2011, 589 Pt 23, 5595–5602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Statistical analyses of the results of the tests of reaction time for the team sports group (TSG).
Table 1. Statistical analyses of the results of the tests of reaction time for the team sports group (TSG).
TestManual
Lateralization		Hand of ExecutionMeanSDSkeCV (%)ΔXtp95%CI Lower95%CI Upper
Start/Stop Testright-handednessRH0.260.02−0.657.69−0.02−2.700.012−0.06−0.01
LH0.280.010.993.57
left-handednessRH0.290.04−0.8613.790.033.360.0030.010.04
LH0.260.020.407.69
Check Boxes Testright-handednessRH32.346.240.1319.306.657.980.0004.998.30
LH25.691.430.385.57
left-handednessRH26.105.120.0419.61−4.43−7.730.000−13.23−7.62
LH30.534.210.3513.79
Hit-the-dot Testright-handednessRH34.204.40−0.5712.876.971.440.0003.927.87
LH27.234.560.5316.75
left-handednessRH19.343.57−0.0118.46−10.35−5.660.000−14.28−6.41
LH29.695.90−0.8419.87
Trail Making Test—part Aright-handednessRH27.447.000.9625.51−5.42−0.770.012−11.292.44
LH32.865.960.8218.14
left-handednessRH32.937.32−0.0722.231.683.460.0020.274.08
LH33.255.05−0.1115.19
Trail Making Test—part Bright-handednessRH36.868.900.4824.15−6.040.440.031−8.571.49
LH42.906.870.6216.01
left-handednessRH46.178.780.6719.028.374.020.0014.0312.69
LH37.806.52−0.0117.25
SD—standard deviation, t—value of Student test, p—lever of statically probability, CI—interval of confidence, RH—right hand, LH—left hand, CV—coefficient of variance, Ske—Skewness parameter, ΔX—mean difference.
Table 2. Statistical analyses of the results of the tests of reaction time for the individual group (ISG).
Table 2. Statistical analyses of the results of the tests of reaction time for the individual group (ISG).
TestManual
Lateralization		Hand of ExecutionMeanSDSkeCV (%)ΔXtp95%CI Lower95%CI Upper
Start/Stop Testright-handednessRH0.320.01−0.053.13−0.02−3.260.005−0.02−0.01
LH0.340.020.505.88
left-handednessRH0.330.03−0.819.090.034.930.0000.0170.04
LH0.300.06−0.1720.00
Check Boxes Testright-handednessRH30.635.820.2719.008.636.070.0005.6311.64
LH22.004.43−0.2220.14
left-handednessRH22.324.470.3620.03−4.84−5.160.000−9.67−4.02
LH27.164.280.8615.76
Hit-the-dot Testright-handednessRH31.823.180.399.998.076.810.0005.5110.63
LH23.753.930.2416.55
left-handednessRH20.803.900.0318.75−7.78−17.870.000−9.75−7.79
LH28.580.900−0.533.15
Trail Making Test—part Aright-handednessRH29.474.800.2816.29−5.78−2.590.023−10.60−0.946
LH35.256.480.4918.38
left-handednessRH39.207.759−0.5819.795.152.310.0333.369.93
LH34.355.52−0.9716.07
Trail Making Test—part Bright-handednessRH39.876.830.9117.13−6.82−4.380.000−10.07−3.54
LH46.694.750.6910.17
left-handednessRH49.407.91−0.0816.019.857.050.0007.6111.08
LH39.552.510.896.35
SD—standard deviation, t—value of Student test, p—lever of statically probability, CO—interval of confidence, RH—right hand, LH—left hand, CV—coefficient of variance, Ske—Skewness parameter, ΔX—mean difference.
Table 3. Statistical analyses of the results of the tests of reaction time for the non-sports group (NAG).
Table 3. Statistical analyses of the results of the tests of reaction time for the non-sports group (NAG).
TestManual
Lateralization		Hand of
Execution		MeanSDSkeCV (%)ΔXtp95%CI Lower95%CI Upper
Start/Stop Testright-handednessRH0.340.03−0.238.82−0.03−4.180.000−0.03−0.01
LH0.370.02−0.305.41
left-handednessRH0.340.040.4011.760.033.270.0020.010.04
LH0.310.03−0.149.68
Check Boxes Testright-handednessRH29.675.780.7719.486.865.760.0004.449.25
LH22.814.760.9520.87
left-handednessRH19.643.750.9219.09−9.63−7.220.000−12.36−6.88
LH29.275.960.7720.36
Hit-the-dot Testright-handednessRH29.313.83−0.8013.076.728.230.0005.078.38
LH22.593.310.7214.65
left-handednessRH20.644.210.3220.40−5.72−6.020.000−7.64−3.78
LH26.363.92−0.7414.87
Trail Making Test—part Aright-handednessRH32.776.28−0.0519.16−2.31−3.970.000−6.48−1.13
LH35.083.980.84011.35
left-handednessRH35.906.87−0.0819.142.056.390.0000.524.59
LH37.854.80−0.0812.68
Trail Making Test—part Bright-handednessRH44.386.75−0.5915.21−3.41−2.600.013−6.06−0.76
LH47.795.130.7110.73
left-handednessRH50.2911.710.4223.289.936.350.0008.1715.68
LH40.366.570.7016.28
SD—standard deviation, t—value of Student test, p—lever of statically probability, CI—interval of confidence, RH—right hand, LH—left hand, CV—coefficient of variance, Ske—Skewness parameter, ΔX—mean difference.
Table 4. ANOVA between right-handedness of TSG, ISG, and NAG.
Table 4. ANOVA between right-handedness of TSG, ISG, and NAG.
TestHand of ExecutionGroupsMean DifferenceSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFp
Start/Stop TestRHISG-TSG0.060.2520.12214.300.000
NAG-TSG0.08
NAG-ISG0.02
LHISG-TSG0.040.1320.0643.750.000
NAG-TSG0.05
NAG-ISG0.01
Check Boxes TestRHISG-TSG−1.71288.302144.154.080.018
NAG-TSG−2.67
NAG-ISG−0.96
LHISG-TSG−3.7821.20210.600.480.014
NAG-TSG−6.46
NAG-ISG−2.68
Hit-the-dot TestRHISG-TSG−2.38374.122187.0612.920.000
NAG-TSG−4.89
NAG-ISG2.51
LHISG-TSG1.46100.06250.033.240.041
NAG-TSG1.30
NAG-ISG−0.16
Trail Making Test—part ARHISG-TSG2.03485.072242.536.640.002
NAG-TSG5.33
NAG-ISG3.30
LHISG-TSG6.27505.852252.924.700.010
NAG-TSG2.97
NAG-ISG−3.30
Trail Making Test—part BRHISG-TSG3.011046.742523.379.360.000
NAG-TSG7.52
NAG-ISG4.51
LHISG-TSG3.232456.9121228.4513.160.000
NAG-TSG4.12
NAG-ISG0.89
TSG—group of team sports, ISG—group of individual sports, NAG—group of non-sports, RH—right hand, LH—left hand, df—degree of freedom, F—value of Fisher test, p—level of statistical probability.
Table 5. ANOVA between left-handedness of TSG, ISG, and NAG.
Table 5. ANOVA between left-handedness of TSG, ISG, and NAG.
TestsHand of ExecutionGroupsMean DifferenceSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFp
Start/Stop TestRHISG-TSG0.060.0420.0380.950.000
NAG-TSG0.09
NAG-ISG0.03
LHISG-TSG0.040.0220.0117.980.000
NAG-TSG0.05
NAG-ISG0.01
Check Boxes TestRHISG-TSG−3.6999.27249.633.040.048
NAG-TSG−2.88
NAG-ISG0.81
LHISG-TSG−3.3772.39236.191.370.026
NAG-TSG−1.26
NAG-ISG2.11
Hit-the-dot TestRHISG-TSG−3.48178.76289.386.030.005
NAG-TSG−4.64
NAG-ISG−1.16
LHISG-TSG−1.11125.69262.843.350.044
NAG-TSG−3.33
NAG-ISG−3.22
Trail Making Test—part ARHISG-TSG2.39145.97272.982.330.019
NAG-TSG2.22
NAG-ISG0.17
LHISG-TSG1.1177.86288.933.470.040
NAG-TSG4.6
NAG-ISG3.5
Trail Making Test—part BRHISG-TSG3.79199.74299.873.200.050
NAG-TSG4.89
NAG-ISG1.1
LHISG-TSG1.7584.41242.221.250.029
NAG-TSG2.56
NAG-ISG0.81
TSG—group of team sports, ISG—group of individual sports, NAG—group of non-sports, RH—right hand, LH—left hand, df—degree of freedom, F—value of Fisher test, p—lever of statistical probability.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Badau, D.; Badau, A.; Joksimović, M.; Manescu, C.O.; Manescu, D.C.; Dinciu, C.C.; Margarit, I.R.; Tudor, V.; Mujea, A.M.; Neofit, A.; et al. Identifying the Level of Symmetrization of Reaction Time According to Manual Lateralization between Team Sports Athletes, Individual Sports Athletes, and Non-Athletes. Symmetry 2024, 16, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16010028

AMA Style

Badau D, Badau A, Joksimović M, Manescu CO, Manescu DC, Dinciu CC, Margarit IR, Tudor V, Mujea AM, Neofit A, et al. Identifying the Level of Symmetrization of Reaction Time According to Manual Lateralization between Team Sports Athletes, Individual Sports Athletes, and Non-Athletes. Symmetry. 2024; 16(1):28. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16010028

Chicago/Turabian Style

Badau, Dana, Adela Badau, Marko Joksimović, Catalin Octavian Manescu, Dan Cristian Manescu, Corina Claudia Dinciu, Iulius Radulian Margarit, Virgil Tudor, Ana Maria Mujea, Adriana Neofit, and et al. 2024. "Identifying the Level of Symmetrization of Reaction Time According to Manual Lateralization between Team Sports Athletes, Individual Sports Athletes, and Non-Athletes" Symmetry 16, no. 1: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16010028

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop