侧性指数共识倡议(LICI):一份德尔菲专家调查报告,建议记录、评估和报告人类行为和大脑研究中的不对称性。

IF 0.9 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Guy Vingerhoets, Helena Verhelst, Robin Gerrits, Nicholas Badcock, Dorothy V M Bishop, David Carey, Jason Flindall, Gina Grimshaw, Lauren Julius Harris, Markus Hausmann, Marco Hirnstein, Lutz Jäncke, Marc Joliot, Karsten Specht, René Westerhausen
{"title":"侧性指数共识倡议(LICI):一份德尔菲专家调查报告,建议记录、评估和报告人类行为和大脑研究中的不对称性。","authors":"Guy Vingerhoets,&nbsp;Helena Verhelst,&nbsp;Robin Gerrits,&nbsp;Nicholas Badcock,&nbsp;Dorothy V M Bishop,&nbsp;David Carey,&nbsp;Jason Flindall,&nbsp;Gina Grimshaw,&nbsp;Lauren Julius Harris,&nbsp;Markus Hausmann,&nbsp;Marco Hirnstein,&nbsp;Lutz Jäncke,&nbsp;Marc Joliot,&nbsp;Karsten Specht,&nbsp;René Westerhausen","doi":"10.1080/1357650X.2023.2199963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Laterality indices (LIs) quantify the left-right asymmetry of brain and behavioural variables and provide a measure that is statistically convenient and seemingly easy to interpret. Substantial variability in how structural and functional asymmetries are recorded, calculated, and reported, however, suggest little agreement on the conditions required for its valid assessment. The present study aimed for consensus on general aspects in this context of laterality research, and more specifically within a particular method or technique (i.e., dichotic listening, visual half-field technique, performance asymmetries, preference bias reports, electrophysiological recording, functional MRI, structural MRI, and functional transcranial Doppler sonography). Experts in laterality research were invited to participate in an online Delphi survey to evaluate consensus and stimulate discussion. In Round 0, 106 experts generated 453 statements on what they considered good practice in their field of expertise. Statements were organised into a 295-statement survey that the experts then were asked, in Round 1, to independently assess for importance and support, which further reduced the survey to 241 statements that were presented again to the experts in Round 2. Based on the Round 2 input, we present a set of critically reviewed key recommendations to record, assess, and report laterality research for various methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":47387,"journal":{"name":"Laterality","volume":"28 2-3","pages":"122-191"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laterality indices consensus initiative (LICI): A Delphi expert survey report on recommendations to record, assess, and report asymmetry in human behavioural and brain research.\",\"authors\":\"Guy Vingerhoets,&nbsp;Helena Verhelst,&nbsp;Robin Gerrits,&nbsp;Nicholas Badcock,&nbsp;Dorothy V M Bishop,&nbsp;David Carey,&nbsp;Jason Flindall,&nbsp;Gina Grimshaw,&nbsp;Lauren Julius Harris,&nbsp;Markus Hausmann,&nbsp;Marco Hirnstein,&nbsp;Lutz Jäncke,&nbsp;Marc Joliot,&nbsp;Karsten Specht,&nbsp;René Westerhausen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1357650X.2023.2199963\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Laterality indices (LIs) quantify the left-right asymmetry of brain and behavioural variables and provide a measure that is statistically convenient and seemingly easy to interpret. Substantial variability in how structural and functional asymmetries are recorded, calculated, and reported, however, suggest little agreement on the conditions required for its valid assessment. The present study aimed for consensus on general aspects in this context of laterality research, and more specifically within a particular method or technique (i.e., dichotic listening, visual half-field technique, performance asymmetries, preference bias reports, electrophysiological recording, functional MRI, structural MRI, and functional transcranial Doppler sonography). Experts in laterality research were invited to participate in an online Delphi survey to evaluate consensus and stimulate discussion. In Round 0, 106 experts generated 453 statements on what they considered good practice in their field of expertise. Statements were organised into a 295-statement survey that the experts then were asked, in Round 1, to independently assess for importance and support, which further reduced the survey to 241 statements that were presented again to the experts in Round 2. Based on the Round 2 input, we present a set of critically reviewed key recommendations to record, assess, and report laterality research for various methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laterality\",\"volume\":\"28 2-3\",\"pages\":\"122-191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laterality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2023.2199963\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laterality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2023.2199963","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

侧性指数(LIs)量化了大脑的左右不对称性和行为变量,并提供了一种统计上方便且看似易于解释的测量方法。然而,在如何记录、计算和报告结构和功能不对称方面的实质性变化表明,对其有效评估所需的条件几乎没有一致意见。本研究旨在就侧边性研究的一般方面达成共识,更具体地说,在特定的方法或技术(即,二分聆听,视觉半视野技术,表现不对称,偏好偏差报告,电生理记录,功能性MRI,结构MRI和功能性经颅多普勒超声)。横向研究方面的专家被邀请参加在线德尔菲调查,以评估共识并激发讨论。在第0轮中,106位专家就他们所认为的各自专业领域的良好实践提出了453项陈述。陈述被组织成一份295条陈述的调查,然后在第一轮中,专家们被要求独立评估重要性和支持度,这进一步将调查减少到241条陈述,再次提交给第二轮的专家。基于第二轮的输入,我们提出了一套经过严格审查的关键建议,以记录、评估和报告各种方法的横向研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Laterality indices consensus initiative (LICI): A Delphi expert survey report on recommendations to record, assess, and report asymmetry in human behavioural and brain research.

Laterality indices (LIs) quantify the left-right asymmetry of brain and behavioural variables and provide a measure that is statistically convenient and seemingly easy to interpret. Substantial variability in how structural and functional asymmetries are recorded, calculated, and reported, however, suggest little agreement on the conditions required for its valid assessment. The present study aimed for consensus on general aspects in this context of laterality research, and more specifically within a particular method or technique (i.e., dichotic listening, visual half-field technique, performance asymmetries, preference bias reports, electrophysiological recording, functional MRI, structural MRI, and functional transcranial Doppler sonography). Experts in laterality research were invited to participate in an online Delphi survey to evaluate consensus and stimulate discussion. In Round 0, 106 experts generated 453 statements on what they considered good practice in their field of expertise. Statements were organised into a 295-statement survey that the experts then were asked, in Round 1, to independently assess for importance and support, which further reduced the survey to 241 statements that were presented again to the experts in Round 2. Based on the Round 2 input, we present a set of critically reviewed key recommendations to record, assess, and report laterality research for various methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Laterality
Laterality Multiple-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition publishes high quality research on all aspects of lateralisation in humans and non-human species. Laterality"s principal interest is in the psychological, behavioural and neurological correlates of lateralisation. The editors will also consider accessible papers from any discipline which can illuminate the general problems of the evolution of biological and neural asymmetry, papers on the cultural, linguistic, artistic and social consequences of lateral asymmetry, and papers on its historical origins and development. The interests of workers in laterality are typically broad.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信