About 90% of humans are right-handed. While it is known that handedness is caused by certain brain regions that are specialized in one of the two hemispheres, it is not clear how this evolved or why right-handedness dominates. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this extreme preference, including the use of tools, the larger size of the human brain, and the fact that humans live primarily on the ground.

Many researchers have regarded the extreme population-wide preference for using the right hand as being uniquely human. However, handedness had not been studied in a standardized manner across a wide range of primates. To fill this gap in our knowledge and understand how handedness may have evolved in monkeys and apes, Caspar et al. used existing data and new experimental observations to create a large dataset of hand preference.

This dataset illustrates how approximately 1800 primates across 38 species retrieve mashed food from a tube (or pieces of paper in the case of humans). Similar to humans, some species of monkey only had small proportions of ambidextrous individuals. However, no species had an extreme preference for using one specific hand the way humans do. Interestingly, Caspar et al. found that the presence of tool use as well as brain size were not associated with the degree of handedness in species. However, ground-living primates tended to show weaker individual preferences for a specific hand than tree-living species, with humans being a notable exception to the trend.

These findings confirm that humans do exhibit exceptional right-handedness, being unique among primates. While the results cannot explain the cause of this behaviour, they do help to rule out some of the theories that aim to explain how this preference evolved. This will be of interest to researchers studying the origins of human behaviour as well as the emergence of asymmetries in the brain.

Pronounced right-handedness is a universal trait among extant human populations (Coren and Porac, 1977; Raymond and Pontier, 2004; Faurie et al., 2005) and might be an ancient attribute of the genus Homo (Toth, 1985; Lozano et al., 2017). Whereas a significant expression of manual lateralization at population level is not exclusive to humans, the universal proportion of approximately 85–95% right-handers in our species appears to be an unmatched extreme among primates (Meguerditchian et al., 2013). Furthermore, individual humans tend to be strongly handed with ambiguous hand preferences being extremely rare (Cochet and Vauclair, 2012), which is also unusual when compared to many other primate lineages (Westergaard and Suomi, 1996; Hopkins et al., 2011). Therefore, both strength and direction of population-level manual lateralization in humans are widely considered to be remarkable.

Handedness is a behavioral consequence of functional asymmetries in the brain (Amunts et al., 1996; Häberling and Corballis, 2016; Sha et al., 2021). Accordingly, right-handedness results from unilateral specializations in the left hemisphere and vice versa. In anthropoid primates, which encompass monkeys, apes, and humans, asymmetries of the precentral gyrus in the primary motor cortex show a particular association with hand preference at the individual level (Yousry et al., 1997; Phillips and Sherwood, 2005; Dadda et al., 2006; Sha et al., 2021). Nevertheless, the proximate reasons for the expression of individual manual lateralization in humans and other anthropoids, including its genetic basis and the influence of brain areas located outside of the motor cortex, are by no means fully understood (Rogers, 2009; Hopkins et al., 2013a; Ocklenburg et al., 2014; Schmitz et al., 2017a; Richards et al., 2021). For this paper, however, we exclusively focus on the evolutionary underpinnings of population-level hand preferences.

The origins of pronounced population-level right-handedness in the human lineage have traditionally been linked to the emergence of complex communication mediated by manual gestures and language, which are also predominantly processed in the left hemisphere (Corballis, 1991; Annett, 2002; Meguerditchian et al., 2013; Ocklenburg et al., 2014; Prieur et al., 2019). However, current evidence suggests that manual and language lateralization are not nearly as tightly correlated as once believed and functional ties between these phenomena remain unidentified (Fitch and Braccini, 2013; Ocklenburg et al., 2014; Schmitz et al., 2017b). It has also been established that various non-human primates show significant asymmetries in hand use at the individual and population level in a variety of tasks, including manual communicative gestures and bimanual actions (MacNeilage, 2007; Hopkins et al., 2013a; Meguerditchian et al., 2013; Regaiolli et al., 2016). Nevertheless, reports of significant population-level biases are largely confined to a comparatively small number of species and the distribution of individuals across hand preference categories is always far more balanced than in humans. For instance, olive baboons (Papio anubis), Western gorillas (Gorilla gorilla), and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) have all been reported to show a significant population-level right-hand bias for bimanual manipulation but the portion of right-handers among these species is only around 50% (Vauclair et al., 2005; Hopkins et al., 2011 – note that this skew is significant due to a notable portion of ambipreferent individuals among these species). Still, it is essential to discern what underlies these comparatively weak population-level hand preference patterns that emerged across the primate order to unravel the origins of pronounced right-handedness in our species (MacNeilage, 2007).

The most influential conjecture to explain how primate hand preference patterns evolved is the postural origins hypothesis (POH) (MacNeilage et al., 1987; MacNeilage, 2007). Considering galagos as models, the POH assumes that hypothetical insectivorous primate ancestors exhibited a right-hand bias to support their body on vertical substrates, while the left-hand specialized for fast grasping movements, the so-called ballistic reaching (Ward, 1998). Based on this, the POH predicts that with the emergence of anthropoid primates, which exhibit arboreal quadrupedalism and more refined digit control, the right hand became adopted to manipulate objects during foraging (MacNeilage et al., 1987). Hence, it proposes that all anthropoids share a right-hand bias for manipulation, which would find its most extreme expression in humans (MacNeilage, 2007; MacNeilage et al., 1987). In the anatomically less derived strepsirrhines, the left hand is instead expected to be dominant (MacNeilage, 2007). However, the POH has been drastically modified in more recent studies (Hopkins et al., 2011; Meguerditchian et al., 2013; Morino et al., 2017). The novel interpretation proposes (in conflict with the original POH) that arboreal monkeys and apes should display a left-hand bias for manipulation. Their right hand would provide the necessary postural support, retaining the hypothesized ancestral primate pattern laid out by MacNeilage et al., 1987. Terrestrial lineages, however, would no longer be bound to reserve the right hand for posture stabilization and are expected to evolve right-hand preferences for fine motor skills, eventually giving rise to the human condition. Hence, the novel POH expects that left-handedness is prevalent in arboreal groups, while a preponderance of right-handedness should be restricted to terrestrial primate species (Meguerditchian et al., 2013). In contrast, the original POH expects to find a right-handedness trend in all anthropoids, regardless of their ecology. Both versions of the POH exclusively rely on correlational evidence from behavioral studies on hand preferences in different primate groups.

In addition to these considerations, it has been prominently proposed that foraging-related extractive tool use facilitated the evolution of hand preferences in humans to allow for more efficient object handling (Kimura, 1979; Frost, 1980). By now, this idea has also been extended to non-human primates that habitually use tools (Cashmore et al., 2008; Prieur et al., 2019). Moreover, neuroanatomical studies demonstrated that the expression of overall neural lateralization and hemispheric independence positively correlates with absolute brain size in primates (Rilling and Insel, 1999; Karolis et al., 2019; Ardesch et al., 2021). Such a scaling relation was already hypothesized by Ringo et al., 1994, and implies that the strength of individual handedness could also be tied to absolute brain size (Hopkins, 2013a; the concept does, however, not concern the direction of hand preferences). Hence, it can be hypothesized that larger-brained primates should evolve greater manual lateralization strength to reduce the amount of interhemispheric communication needed to accomplish manipulative tasks.

Given all this, testable hypotheses on primate hand preference evolution have long been established, but none of them have so far been assessed within quantitative evolutionary frameworks (Hopkins, 2013b). Studies on comparative cognition increasingly rely on phylogenetically informed modelling to estimate how and when specific behaviors evolved (MacLean et al., 2012; ManyPrimates et al., 2019 ; Krasheninnikova et al., 2020). Such approaches can provide estimates of ancestral states and allow researchers to quantify the influence of phylogeny and ecological variables on cognitive evolution (MacLean et al., 2012). However, to yield meaningful results, dense taxonomic sampling of species and a consistent testing scheme are required (Freckleton et al., 2002; Krasheninnikova et al., 2020). For research on primate hand preferences, this means that subjects from different species need to engage in the same experimental task to assess lateralization. Standardization is particularly important since both the strength and the direction of individual hand preferences can be task-dependent and because the expression of manual lateralization often correlates positively with motor complexity (Vauclair et al., 2005; Blois-Heulin et al., 2007; Lilak and Phillips, 2008; Meguerditchian et al., 2015; Caspar et al., 2018). Bimanual actions that involve both hands and which spontaneously occur during food manipulation or tool use are particularly suitable to detect hand preferences (Meguerditchian et al., 2013), while non-gestural unimanual actions such as grasping often do not elicit pronounced group- or individual-level lateralized responses (Papademetriou et al., 2005; Rogers, 2009; Hopkins et al., 2013b). However, habitual tool use is found in only a few lineages of primates (Musgrave and Sanz, 2018) and thus is only of limited use for comparative approaches. Therefore, bimanual actions related to foraging present themselves as suitable candidates for comparative studies on hand preferences in these animals.

A simple and widely applicable experiment to determine anthropoid primate hand preferences is the so-called tube task (Hopkins, 1995): A subject is handed a PVC tube filled with desired food. To extract it, one hand must hold the tube while the other has to engage in the more complicated action of retrieving the food mesh, thereby revealing biases in hand use dominance. Results from the tube task have been demonstrated to robustly correlate with hemispheric asymmetries in various primate groups (New World monkeys: Phillips and Sherwood, 2005; Old World monkeys: Margiotoudi et al., 2019; apes: Hopkins and Cantalupo, 2004; Dadda et al., 2006) and to be intraindividually consistent across re-tests, even if these were separated by several years (Hopkins et al., 2001). Furthermore, its simplicity allows uniform testing of a wide range of species in captive as well as natural settings (Zhao et al., 2012).

Here, we compiled a comprehensive multispecies tube task dataset to test pertaining hypotheses on the evolution of primate manual lateralization by means of phylogenetically informed modelling. This way we provide a broad comparative perspective on the origins of human right-handedness in the context of object manipulation.

Lateralization strength (MeanAbsHI) but not direction (MeanHI) displays a strong phylogenetic signal among anthropoids (Figure 1). Accordingly, MeanAbsHI (λ=0.89, p_{likelihood-ratio test} = 0.03) varied substantially between lineages but was often stable within groups of closely related taxa. MeanHI on the other hand showed random fluctuations around zero (λ<0.001; p_{likelihood-ratio test} = 1), and notable population level shifts toward either right- or left-hand preferences were uncommon (see below). Species-level distributions of hand preferences are summarized in Table 1 and are visualized at genus level in Figure 2.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Ancestral hand preference strength was modelled to have been similarly moderate in the stem lineages of hominoids (AbsHI = 0.606) and cercopithecoids (AbsHI = 0.627), while it was inferred to be higher in the ancestral platyrrhines (AbsHI = 0.740; Figure 1, Supplementary file 1). We found hand preference strength to be particularly weak among some species in the Papionina clade (baboons and their relatives) and to be least expressed in the gelada (Theropithecus gelada – MeanAbsHI = 0.257). The strongest preferences were found in humans (MeanAbsHI = 0.943), langurs of the genus Trachypithecus (MeanAbsHI = 0.868), and spider monkeys (Ateles spp. – MeanAbsHI = 0.831). Very pronounced individual preferences were also found in white-faced sakis (Pithecia pithecia – MeanAbsHI = 0.934) but our sample size for this species was notably small (n=7). In consequence, all aforementioned taxa included only very few, if any, ambipreferent individuals. Besides the saki genus Pithecia, the South Asian colobines Rhinopithecus and Trachypithecus were the only genera in which no ambipreferent individuals were found. Direction of manual lateralization was far more uniform across the anthropoid radiation than strength (Figure 1; Supplementary file 1). No species approached the extreme direction bias of humans (compare Figure 2), and only 2 of 37 non-human species exhibited a significant population-level bias as indicated by the one-sample t-test after correcting for multiple testing (4 of 37 when no correction was applied), namely gorillas and chimpanzees. Thus, such biases were restricted to the African ape lineage. After correcting for multiple testing, intraspecific frequencies of ambipreferent individuals, right-, and left-handers, as indicated by the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, differed significantly from the superordinate taxon estimate in four non-human species. These were chimpanzees, which are right-handed at the population level, and the predominately left-handed golden snub-nosed monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana), as well as geladas and black lion tamarins (Leontopithecus chrysopygus), both of which encompass a large proportion of ambipreferent individuals (Table 1). When omitting correction, respective biases were more frequent and found in 12 non-human species across the three major clades studied. Species- and genus-level results closely corresponded to each other (Table 1).

Our selected predictors for phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) models showed a mixed and overall weak performance in explaining expression patterns of hand preference strength and direction in anthropoids (Table 2, Figure 3). For the initial model on lateralization direction, we found a significant effect of ecology, with terrestrial species displaying a right-hand bias compared to arboreal ones (p=0.04; Table 2A). However, when humans were removed from the model, this effect was merely recovered as a non-significant trend (p=0.07; Table 2B). Other predictors had no significant effect on lateralization direction, regardless of whether humans were considered in the model or not (p>0.2, Table 2A and B). When humans were included (Table 3A), models encompassing the component ecology as well as some considering brain size outperformed the lateralization direction null model. When humans were omitted from the analysis, the null model was solely outperformed by one that exclusively included the ecological component, and only slightly so (ΔAICc = 1.23; Table 3B), indicating a notable bias derived from the extreme right-handedness of our species. Thus, whereas habitual tool use and absolute brain size clearly do not influence the direction of lateralization among anthropoids in general, the analyses provide evidence for a weak but detectable effect of ecology in non-human taxa. Such ecological signatures were found to be of somewhat greater relevance for patterns of lateralization strength. Here, a significant negative effect of a terrestrial lifestyle was found (p=0.04; see Table 2C). In line with that, models including the component ecology consistently outperformed the null model, which was not the case for those including only tool use and/or brain size (Table 3C). Still, even the accuracy of the model relying on ecology alone exceeded that of the null model only moderately (ΔAICc = 2.53; Table 3C). Thus, terrestrial anthropoids tend to show weaker hand preferences than arboreal ones while there is no correlation with brain size or habitual tool use for this trait.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

At the individual level, Bayesian models showed that neither age nor sex had an influence on lateralization direction when the total sample was concerned (the respective credible intervals overlapped with zero; Supplementary file 2). However, we recovered a notable effect of age on lateralization direction in the hominoid subsample exclusively, with subadults tending more toward left-handedness than adults (credible interval = –0.28 to –0.01; Supplementary file 2). We observed a different pattern for lateralization strength. Here, an effect of age but again not sex was recovered for both the total sample (credible interval = –0.11 to –0.05) and the hominoid subsample (credible interval = –0.16 to –0.02), with weaker lateralization in subadults compared to adults. Such an influence of age was not detectable in neither platyrrhines nor cercopithecoids when these taxa were considered separately (credible intervals overlapping with zero; Supplementary file 2).

All data generated or analysed during this study have been deposited on Dryad: https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8sf7m0crv R code relevant to statistical analyses is deposited here: https://github.com/fpallasdies/CasparEtAl2022PrimateHandPreference.git, (copy archived at swh:1:rev:69cb316acaf82b1650386b5d8fcc9964e611ca01).

1. 1. Caspar KR
   2. Pallasdies F
   3. Mader L
   4. Sartorelli H
   5. Begall S

   (2022) Dryad Digital Repository

   The evolution and biological correlates of hand preferences in anthropoid primates.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8sf7m0crv

1. 1. Amunts K
   2. Schlaug G
   3. Schleicher A
   4. Steinmetz H
   5. Dabringhaus A
   6. Roland PE
   7. Zilles K

   (1996) Asymmetry in the human motor cortex and handedness

   NeuroImage 4:216–222.

   https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1996.0073

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Ankel-Simons F
   2. Rasmussen DT

   (2008) Diurnality, nocturnality, and the evolution of primate visual systems

   American Journal of Physical Anthropology Suppl 47:100–117.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20957

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. Book

   1. Annett M

   (2002)

   Handedness and Brain Asymmetry: The Right Shift Theory

   Hove: Psychology Press.

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Ardesch DJ
   2. Scholtens LH
   3. de Lange SC
   4. Roumazeilles L
   5. Khrapitchev AA
   6. Preuss TM
   7. Rilling JK
   8. Mars RB
   9. van den Heuvel MP

   (2021) Scaling principles of white matter connectivity in the human and nonhuman primate brain

   Cerebral Cortex 32:2831–2842.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhab384

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Arnold C
   2. Matthews LJ
   3. Nunn CL

   (2010) The 10ktrees website: a new online resource for primate phylogeny

   Evolutionary Anthropology 19:114–118.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.20251

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Barrett RLC
   2. Dawson M
   3. Dyrby TB
   4. Krug K
   5. Ptito M
   6. D’Arceuil H
   7. Croxson PL
   8. Johnson PJ
   9. Howells H
   10. Forkel SJ
   11. Dell’Acqua F
   12. Catani M

   (2020) Differences in frontal network anatomy across primate species

   The Journal of Neuroscience 40:2094–2107.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1650-18.2019

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. Software

   1. Barton K

   (2020) MuMIn: multi-model inference, version 1.43.17

   R Package.

   https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
8. 1. Batist CH
   2. Mayhew JA

   (2020) Lateralization in seven lemur species when presented with a novel cognitive task

   American Journal of Physical Anthropology 172:270–279.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24037

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Becker Y
   2. Claidière N
   3. Margiotoudi K
   4. Marie D
   5. Roth M
   6. Nazarian B
   7. Anton JL
   8. Coulon O
   9. Meguerditchian A

   (2022) Broca’s cerebral asymmetry reflects gestural communication’s lateralisation in monkeys (Papio anubis)

   eLife 11:e70521.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70521

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Blois-Heulin C
    2. Bernard V
    3. Bec P

    (2007) Postural effect on manual laterality in different tasks in captive grey-cheeked mangabey (Lophocebus albigena)

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 121:205–213.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.121.2.205

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bürkner P

    (2017) Brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan

    Journal of Statistical Software 80:1–28.

    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Canteloup C
    2. Vauclair J
    3. Meunier H

    (2013) Hand preferences on unimanual and bimanual tasks in tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana)

    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 152:315–321.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22342

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Cashmore L
    2. Uomini N
    3. Chapelain A

    (2008)

    The evolution of handedness in humans and great apes: a review and current issues

    Journal of Anthropological Sciences = Rivista Di Antropologia 86:7–35.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Caspar KR
    2. Mader L
    3. Pallasdies F
    4. Lindenmeier M
    5. Begall S

    (2018) Captive gibbons (Hylobatidae) use different referential cues in an object-choice task: insights into lesser ape cognition and manual laterality

    PeerJ 6:e5348.

    https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5348

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Chatagny P
    2. Badoud S
    3. Kaeser M
    4. Gindrat A-D
    5. Savidan J
    6. Fregosi M
    7. Moret V
    8. Roulin C
    9. Schmidlin E
    10. Rouiller EM

    (2013) Distinction between hand dominance and hand preference in primates: a behavioral investigation of manual dexterity in nonhuman primates (macaques) and human subjects

    Brain and Behavior 3:575–595.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.160

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Cochet H
    2. Vauclair J

    (2012) Hand preferences in human adults: non-communicative actions versus communicative gestures

    Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 48:1017–1026.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.03.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Corballis MC

    (1987) Straw monkeys

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10:269–270.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00047762

    • Google Scholar
18. Book

    1. Corballis MC

    (1991)

    The Lopsided Ape: Evolution of the Generative Mind

    Oxford University Press.

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Coren S
    2. Porac C

    (1977) Fifty centuries of right-handedness: the historical record

    Science 198:631–632.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.335510

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Cubí M
    2. Llorente M

    (2021) Hand preference for a bimanual coordinated task in captive hatinh langurs (Trachypithecus hatinhensis) and grey-shanked douc langurs (Pygathrix cinerea)

    Behavioural Processes 187:104393.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104393

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dadda M
    2. Cantalupo C
    3. Hopkins WD

    (2006) Further evidence of an association between handedness and neuroanatomical asymmetries in the primary motor cortex of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

    Neuropsychologia 44:2582–2586.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.03.037

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. De Andrade AC
    2. Sousa AB

    (2018) Hand preferences and differences in extractive foraging in seven capuchin monkey species

    American Journal of Primatology 80:e22901.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22901

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Diamond AC
    2. McGrew WC

    (1994) True handedness in the cotton-top tamarin (Saguinus oedipus)?

    Primates 35:69–77.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381487

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Fan P
    2. Liu C
    3. Chen H
    4. Liu X
    5. Zhao D
    6. Zhang J
    7. Liu D

    (2017) Preliminary study on hand preference in captive northern white-cheeked gibbons (Nomascus leucogenys)

    Primates; Journal of Primatology 58:75–82.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-016-0573-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Faurie C
    2. Schiefenhövel W
    3. le Bomin S
    4. Billiard S
    5. Raymond M

    (2005) Variation in the frequency of left‐handedness in traditional societies

    Current Anthropology 46:142–147.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/427101

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Fitch WT
    2. Braccini SN

    (2013) Primate laterality and the biology and evolution of human handedness: a review and synthesis

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1288:70–85.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12071

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Freckleton RP
    2. Harvey PH
    3. Pagel M

    (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence

    The American Naturalist 160:712–726.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/343873

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Frost GT

    (1980) Tool behavior and the origins of laterality

    Journal of Human Evolution 9:447–459.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(80)90002-0

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Gebo DL

    (2011) Vertical clinging and leaping revisited: vertical support use as the ancestral condition of strepsirrhine primates

    American Journal of Physical Anthropology 146:323–335.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21595

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Giljov A
    2. Karenina K
    3. Ingram J
    4. Malashichev Y

    (2015) Parallel emergence of true handedness in the evolution of marsupials and placentals

    Current Biology 25:1878–1884.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.043

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Häberling IS
    2. Corballis MC

    (2016) Cerebellar asymmetry, cortical asymmetry and handedness: two independent networks

    Laterality 21:397–414.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2015.1110161

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Harvey PH
    2. Clutton-Brock TH

    (1985) Life history variation in primates

    Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 39:559–581.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00395.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Hecht EE
    2. Gutman DA
    3. Khreisheh N
    4. Taylor SV
    5. Kilner J
    6. Faisal AA
    7. Bradley BA
    8. Chaminade T
    9. Stout D

    (2015a) Acquisition of paleolithic toolmaking abilities involves structural remodeling to inferior frontoparietal regions

    Brain Structure & Function 220:2315–2331.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-014-0789-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Hecht EE
    2. Gutman DA
    3. Bradley BA
    4. Preuss TM
    5. Stout D

    (2015b) Virtual dissection and comparative connectivity of the superior longitudinal fasciculus in chimpanzees and humans

    NeuroImage 108:124–137.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.039

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Hopkins WD

    (1995) Hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task in 110 chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): cross-sectional analysis

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 109:291–297.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.109.3.291

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Hopkins WD
    2. Fernandez-Carriba S
    3. Wesley MJ
    4. Hostetter A
    5. Pilcher D
    6. Poss S

    (2001) The use of bouts and frequencies in the evaluation of hand preferences for a coordinated bimanual task in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): an empirical study comparing two different indices of laterality

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 115:294–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1037//0735-7036.115.3.294

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Hopkins WD
    2. Cantalupo C

    (2004) Handedness in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) is associated with asymmetries of the primary motor cortex but not with homologous language areas

    Behavioral Neuroscience 118:1176–1183.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.118.6.1176

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Hopkins WD
    2. Phillips KA
    3. Bania A
    4. Calcutt SE
    5. Gardner M
    6. Russell J
    7. Schaeffer J
    8. Lonsdorf EV
    9. Ross SR
    10. Schapiro SJ

    (2011) Hand preferences for coordinated bimanual actions in 777 great apes: implications for the evolution of handedness in hominins

    Journal of Human Evolution 60:605–611.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.12.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Hopkins WD

    (2013a) Neuroanatomical asymmetries and handedness in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): a case for continuity in the evolution of hemispheric specialization

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1288:17–35.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12109

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Hopkins WD
    2. Adams MJ
    3. Weiss A

    (2013a) Genetic and environmental contributions to the expression of handedness in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

    Genes, Brain, and Behavior 12:446–452.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Hopkins WD

    (2013b) Comparing human and nonhuman primate handedness: challenges and a modest proposal for consensus

    Developmental Psychobiology 55:621–636.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21139

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Hopkins WD
    2. Gardner M
    3. Mingle M
    4. Reamer L
    5. Schapiro SJ

    (2013b) Within- and between-task consistency in hand use as a means of characterizing hand preferences in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 127:380–391.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031071

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Kaplan G
    2. Rogers LJ

    (2021) Brain size associated with foot preferences in Australian parrots

    Symmetry 13:867.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13050867

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Karolis VR
    2. Corbetta M
    3. Thiebaut de Schotten M

    (2019) The architecture of functional lateralisation and its relationship to callosal connectivity in the human brain

    Nature Communications 10:1417.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09344-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. Book

    1. Kimura D

    (1979) Neuromotor mechanisms in the evolution of human communication

    In: Paleigh HDSM, editors. Neurobiology of Social Communication in Primates: An Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge: Academic Press. pp. 1197–1220.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13003099

    • Google Scholar
46. Book

    1. Kitchener AC
    2. Meloro C
    3. Williams TM

    (2017) Form and function of the musteloids

    In: Macdonald DW, Newman C, Harrington L, editors. The Biology and Conservation of Wild Musteloids. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 98–135.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198759805.003.0003

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Kong XZ
    2. Mathias SR
    3. Guadalupe T
    4. Glahn DC
    5. Franke B
    6. Crivello F
    7. Tzourio-Mazoyer N
    8. Fisher SE
    9. Thompson PM
    10. Francks C
    11. ENIGMA Laterality Working Group

    (2018) Mapping cortical brain asymmetry in 17,141 healthy individuals worldwide via the enigma consortium

    PNAS 115:E5154–E5163.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718418115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Krasheninnikova A
    2. Chow PKY
    3. von Bayern AMP

    (2020) Comparative cognition: practical shortcomings and some potential ways forward

    Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Experimentale 74:160–169.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000204

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Laska M

    (1996) A study of correlates of hand preferences in squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)

    Primates 37:457–465.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02381379

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Laurence A
    2. Wallez C
    3. Blois-Heulin C

    (2011) Task complexity, posture, age, sex: which is the main factor influencing manual laterality in captive Cercocebus torquatus torquatus?

    Laterality 16:586–606.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2010.501338

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Lilak AL
    2. Phillips KA

    (2008) Consistency of hand preference across low-level and high-level tasks in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)

    American Journal of Primatology 70:254–260.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20485

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Lima MGM
    2. Silva-Júnior JDS
    3. Černý D
    4. Buckner JC
    5. Aleixo A
    6. Chang J
    7. Zheng J
    8. Alfaro ME
    9. Martins A
    10. Di Fiore A
    11. Boubli JP
    12. Lynch Alfaro JW

    (2018) A phylogenomic perspective on the robust capuchin monkey (Sapajus) radiation: first evidence for extensive population admixture across south america

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 124:137–150.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.02.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Lozano M
    2. Estalrrich A
    3. Bondioli L
    4. Fiore I
    5. Bermúdez de Castro J-M
    6. Arsuaga JL
    7. Carbonell E
    8. Rosas A
    9. Frayer DW

    (2017) Right-handed fossil humans

    Evolutionary Anthropology 26:313–324.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21554

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. MacLean EL
    2. Matthews LJ
    3. Hare BA
    4. Nunn CL
    5. Anderson RC
    6. Aureli F
    7. Brannon EM
    8. Call J
    9. Drea CM
    10. Emery NJ
    11. Haun DBM
    12. Herrmann E
    13. Jacobs LF
    14. Platt ML
    15. Rosati AG
    16. Sandel AA
    17. Schroepfer KK
    18. Seed AM
    19. Tan J
    20. van Schaik CP
    21. Wobber V

    (2012) How does cognition evolve? Phylogenetic comparative psychology

    Animal Cognition 15:223–238.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0448-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. MacNeilage PF
    2. Studdert-Kennedy MG
    3. Lindblom B

    (1987) Primate handedness reconsidered

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10:247–263.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00047695

    • Google Scholar
56. Book

    1. MacNeilage PF

    (2007) Present status of the postural origins theory

    In: Hopkins WD, editors. In The Evolution of Hemispheric Specialization in Primates. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 59–91.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1936-8526(07)05003-8

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Maille A
    2. Belbeoc’h C
    3. Rossard A
    4. Bec P
    5. Blois-Heulin C

    (2013) Which are the features of the tube task that make it so efficient in detecting manual asymmetries? an investigation in two cercopithecine species (Cercopithecus neglectus and Cercocebus torquatus)

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 127:436–444.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032227

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. ManyPrimates
    2. Altschul DM
    3. Beran MJ
    4. Bohn M
    5. Caspar KR
    6. Fichtel C
    7. Försterling M
    8. Grebe N
    9. Hernandez-Aguilar RA
    10. Kwok SC
    11. Rodrigo AM
    12. Proctor D
    13. Sanchez-Amaro A
    14. Simpson EA
    15. Szabelska A
    16. Taylor D
    17. van der Mescht J
    18. Völter C
    19. Watzek J

    (2019)

    Collaborative open science as a way to reproducibility and new insights in primate cognition research

    Japanese Psychological Review 63:205–220.

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Marchant LF
    2. McGrew WC

    (2013) Handedness is more than laterality: lessons from chimpanzees

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1288:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12062

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Margiotoudi K
    2. Marie D
    3. Claidière N
    4. Coulon O
    5. Roth M
    6. Nazarian B
    7. Lacoste R
    8. Hopkins WD
    9. Molesti S
    10. Fresnais P
    11. Anton JL
    12. Meguerditchian A

    (2019) Handedness in monkeys reflects hemispheric specialization within the central sulcus: an in vivo MRI study in right- and left-handed olive baboons

    Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior 118:203–211.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.01.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Meguerditchian A.
    2. Donnot J
    3. Molesti S
    4. Francioly R
    5. Vauclair J

    (2012) Sex difference in squirrel monkeys’ handedness for unimanual and bimanual coordinated tasks

    Animal Behaviour 83:635–643.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.12.005

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Meguerditchian A.
    2. Vauclair J
    3. Hopkins WD

    (2013) On the origins of human handedness and language: a comparative review of hand preferences for bimanual coordinated actions and gestural communication in nonhuman primates

    Developmental Psychobiology 55:637–650.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21150

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Meguerditchian A
    2. Phillips KA
    3. Chapelain A
    4. Mahovetz LM
    5. Milne S
    6. Stoinski T
    7. Bania A
    8. Lonsdorf E
    9. Schaeffer J
    10. Russell J
    11. Hopkins WD

    (2015) Handedness for unimanual grasping in 564 great apes: the effect on grip morphology and a comparison with hand use for a bimanual coordinated task

    Frontiers in Psychology 6:1794.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01794

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. Book

    1. Mittermeier RA
    2. Rylands AB
    3. Wilson DE

    (2013)

    Handbook of the Mammals of the World: 3. Primates

    Lynx Ediciones.

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Morales-Jimenez AL
    2. Disotell T
    3. Di Fiore A

    (2015) Revisiting the phylogenetic relationships, biogeography, and taxonomy of spider monkeys (genus Ateles) in light of new molecular data

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 82 Pt B:467–483.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2014.09.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Morino L
    2. Uchikoshi M
    3. Bercovitch F
    4. Hopkins WD
    5. Matsuzawa T

    (2017) Tube task hand preference in captive hylobatids

    Primates; Journal of Primatology 58:403–412.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-017-0605-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Motes Rodrigo A
    2. Ramirez Torres CE
    3. Hernandez Salazar LT
    4. Laska M

    (2018) Hand preferences in two unimanual and two bimanual coordinated tasks in the black-handed spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi)

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 132:220–229.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. Book

    1. Musgrave S
    2. Sanz C

    (2018) Tool use in nonhuman primates

    In: Callan H, editors. The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. WIley. pp. 1–20.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2063

    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Nelson EL
    2. Boeving ER

    (2015) Precise digit use increases the expression of handedness in Colombian spider monkeys (Ateles fusciceps rufiventris)

    American Journal of Primatology 77:1253–1262.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22478

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Ocklenburg S
    2. Beste C
    3. Arning L
    4. Peterburs J
    5. Güntürkün O

    (2014) The ontogenesis of language lateralization and its relation to handedness

    Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 43:191–198.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.04.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Papademetriou E
    2. Sheu CF
    3. Michel GF

    (2005) A meta-analysis of primate hand preferences, particularly for reaching

    Journal of Comparative Psychology 119:33–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.119.1.33

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Paradis E
    2. Schliep K
    3. Schwartz R

    (2019) Ape 5.0: an environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R

    Bioinformatics 35:526–528.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty633

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Phillips KA
    2. Sherwood CC

    (2005) Primary motor cortex asymmetry is correlated with handedness in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella)

    Behavioral Neuroscience 119:1701–1704.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.119.6.1701

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Phillips KA
    2. Sherwood CC
    3. Lilak AL

    (2007) Corpus callosum morphology in capuchin monkeys is influenced by sex and handedness

    PLOS ONE 2:e792.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000792

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. Software

    1. Pinheiro J

    (2020) Nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, version 3.1-148

    R Package Version.

    https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
76. 1. Prieur J
    2. Lemasson A
    3. Barbu S
    4. Blois‐Heulin C
    5. Bshary R

    (2019) History, development and current advances concerning the evolutionary roots of human right‐handedness and language: brain lateralisation and manual laterality in non‐human primates

    Ethology 125:1–28.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12827

    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Ramayya AG
    2. Glasser MF
    3. Rilling JK

    (2010) A DTI investigation of neural substrates supporting tool use

    Cerebral Cortex 20:507–516.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp141

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Rasmussen DT
    2. Nekaris KA

    (1998) Evolutionary history of lorisiform primates

    Folia Primatologica; International Journal of Primatology 69 Suppl 1:250–285.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000052716

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Raymond M
    2. Pontier D

    (2004) Is there geographical variation in human handedness?

    Laterality 9:35–51.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500244000274

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 1.1.1

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.R-project.org/
81. 1. Regaiolli B
    2. Spiezio C
    3. Hopkins WD

    (2016) Hand preference on unimanual and bimanual tasks in strepsirrhines: the case of the ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta)

    American Journal of Primatology 78:851–860.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22549

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Regaiolli B
    2. Spiezio C
    3. Hopkins WD

    (2018) Hand preference on unimanual and bimanual tasks in barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

    American Journal of Primatology 80:e22745.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22745

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Revell LJ

    (2012) Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things)

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:217–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Richards G
    2. Beking T
    3. Kreukels BPC
    4. Geuze RH
    5. Beaton AA
    6. Groothuis T

    (2021) An examination of the influence of prenatal sex hormones on handedness: literature review and amniotic fluid data

    Hormones and Behavior 129:104929.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2021.104929

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Rilling JK
    2. Insel TR

    (1999) Differential expansion of neural projection systems in primate brain evolution

    Neuroreport 10:1453–1459.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-199905140-00012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Rilling JK
    2. Glasser MF
    3. Preuss TM
    4. Ma X
    5. Zhao T
    6. Hu X
    7. Behrens TEJ

    (2008) The evolution of the arcuate fasciculus revealed with comparative DTI

    Nature Neuroscience 11:426–428.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2072

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Ringo JL
    2. Doty RW
    3. Demeter S
    4. Simard PY

    (1994) Time is of the essence: a conjecture that hemispheric specialization arises from interhemispheric conduction delay

    Cerebral Cortex 4:331–343.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/4.4.331

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Rogers LJ

    (2009) Hand and paw preferences in relation to the lateralized brain

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 364:943–954.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0225

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Roos C
    2. Liedigk R
    3. Thinh VN
    4. Nadler T
    5. Zinner D

    (2019) The hybrid origin of the Indochinese gray langur Trachypithecus crepusculus

    International Journal of Primatology 40:9–27.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-017-0008-4

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Sanford C
    2. Guin K
    3. Ward JP

    (1984) Posture and laterality in the bushbaby (Galago senegalensis)

    Brain, Behavior and Evolution 25:217–224.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000118867

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Schmitt V
    2. Melchisedech S
    3. Hammerschmidt K
    4. Fischer J

    (2008) Hand preferences in barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

    Laterality 13:143–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500701757532

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Schmitz J
    2. Lor S
    3. Klose R
    4. Güntürkün O
    5. Ocklenburg S

    (2017a) The functional genetics of handedness and language lateralization: insights from gene ontology, pathway and disease association analyses

    Frontiers in Psychology 8:1144.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01144

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Schmitz J
    2. Metz GAS
    3. Güntürkün O
    4. Ocklenburg S

    (2017b) Beyond the genome-towards an epigenetic understanding of handedness ontogenesis

    Progress in Neurobiology 159:69–89.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.10.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Schweitzer C
    2. Bec P
    3. Blois-Heulin C

    (2007) Does the complexity of the task influence manual laterality in de brazza’s monkeys (Cercopithecus neglectus)?

    Ethology 113:983–994.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2007.01405.x

    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Sha Z
    2. Pepe A
    3. Schijven D
    4. Carrión-Castillo A
    5. Roe JM
    6. Westerhausen R
    7. Joliot M
    8. Fisher SE
    9. Crivello F
    10. Francks C

    (2021) Handedness and its genetic influences are associated with structural asymmetries of the cerebral cortex in 31,864 individuals

    PNAS 118:e2113095118.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2113095118

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Silcox MT
    2. Bloch JI
    3. Boyer DM
    4. Godinot M
    5. Ryan TM
    6. Spoor F
    7. Walker A

    (2009) Semicircular canal system in early primates

    Journal of Human Evolution 56:315–327.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.10.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. Book

    1. Spoelstra K

    (2021)

    Lateralized Behavior in White-Handed Gibbons: Hylobates lar

    Master Thesis. Linköping University, Linköping.

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Sussman RW
    2. Tab Rasmussen D
    3. Raven PH

    (2013) Rethinking primate origins again

    American Journal of Primatology 75:95–106.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22096

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Tan Y
    2. Yoder AD
    3. Yamashita N
    4. Li WH

    (2005) Evidence from opsin genes rejects nocturnality in ancestral primates

    PNAS 102:14712–14716.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507042102

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Toth N

     (1985) Archaeological evidence for preferential right-handedness in the lower and middle Pleistocene, and its possible implications

     Journal of Human Evolution 14:607–614.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2484(85)80087-7

     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Vauclair J
     2. Meguerditchian A
     3. Hopkins WD

     (2005) Hand preferences for unimanual and coordinated bimanual tasks in baboons (Papio anubis)

     Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research 25:210–216.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.05.012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Ward JP

     (1998)

     Left hand advantage for prey capture in the galago (Galago moholi)

     International Journal of Comparative Psychology 11:173–184.

     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Westergaard GC
     2. Suomi SJ

     (1996) Hand preference for a bimanual task in tufted capuchins (Cebus apella) and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)

     Journal of Comparative Psychology 110:406–411.

     https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.110.4.406

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Westergaard GC
     2. Kuhn HE
     3. Suomi SJ

     (1998) Bipedal posture and hand preference in humans and other primates

     Journal of Comparative Psychology 112:55–64.

     https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.112.1.55

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Yousry TA
     2. Schmid UD
     3. Alkadhi H
     4. Schmidt D
     5. Peraud A
     6. Buettner A
     7. Winkler P

     (1997) Localization of the motor hand area to a knob on the precentral gyrus: A new landmark

     Brain 120 (Pt 1):141–157.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/120.1.141

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Zhao D
     2. Hopkins WD
     3. Li B

     (2012) Handedness in nature: first evidence on manual laterality on bimanual coordinated tube task in wild primates

     American Journal of Physical Anthropology 148:36–44.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22038

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Kai R Caspar

   1. Department of General Zoology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
   2. Department of Game Management and Wildlife Biology, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Praha, Czech Republic

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   kai.caspar@uni-due.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2112-1050

2. Fabian Pallasdies

   Institute for Theoretical Biology, Department of Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5359-4699

3. Larissa Mader

   Department of General Zoology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Heitor Sartorelli

   Independent researcher, São Paulo, Brazil

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Sabine Begall

   Department of General Zoology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9907-6387

• 1,949

  views

• 235

  downloads

• 16

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.