Effects of hand dominance on lateralized tactile processing

Güliz Akın Öztürk; Emre Eskicioğlu; Çağdaş Güdücü

doi:10.18614/dehm.1819476

Effects of hand dominance on lateralized tactile processing

Abstract

Objective of the study: The study aimed to examine how the manipulation of static interstimulus intervals (ISI) influences cortical somatosensory responses to non-painful tactile stimuli when applied to the dominant and non-dominant hands. Methods: Nineteen healthy, right-handed volunteers participated in the EEG study.non-painful tactile stimuli were delivered to the right and left fingertips in separate sessions. The ISI was set at a short 2-second interval (ISI2) and a long 8-second interval (ISI8) in separate sessions. The primary measure was the Peak-to-Peak Maximum (PPMax) amplitude, calculated between the late cortical N2 (200 ms) and P2 (around 300 ms) components. A three-way repeated-measures ANOVA (ISI x Electrode x Hand) was used for statistical analysis. Results: A significant main effect of ISI was found (p < .001), with PPMax amplitudes significantly higher in the ISI8 session compared to ISI2. Crucially, there was no significant main effect of the hand. Conclusion(s): The increased amplitude at ISI8 supports the concept that longer intervals facilitate recovery from habituation. The absence of a significant difference between the dominant and non-dominant hands, contrary to typical lateralized findings, suggests a weakening of this lateralized pattern under static ISI conditions.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

All participants were fully informed about the experimental procedures prior to participation and provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the university (Decision No:2023/04-29, Date:15/02/2023).

Thanks

The authors thank Ugras Erdogan for his support in experimental design on MatLab and Zehra Ulgen for her contributions to statistical analysis.

References

1. Buhusi CV, Meck WH. What makes us tick? Functional and neural mechanisms of interval timing. Nat Rev Neurosci.2005 Oct;6(10):755–65.
2. Hillyard SA, Teder-Sälejärvi WA, Münte TF. Temporal dynamics of early perceptual processing. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1998 Apr;8(2):202–10.
3. Klingner CM, Hasler C, Brodoehl S, Witte OW. Excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms underlying somatosensory habituation. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014 Jan;35(1):152–60.
4. Mase A, Shibasaki M, Nakata H. Effects of inter-stimulus and inter-trial intervals on somatosensory gating. Somatosens Mot Res. 2024 May 28;1–6.
5. McDiarmid TA, Bernardos AC, Rankin CH. Habituation is altered in neuropsychiatric disorders—A comprehensive review with recommendations for experimental design and analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017;80:286–305.
6. Pinto J, Vogel E, Aylwin M de la L, Kreither J. ERPs studies of short- and long-term habituation in humans: a systematic review. Psykhe (Santiago). 2022;(SIssue). doi:10.7764/psykhe.2021.36885.
7. Nakajima Y, Imamura N. Probability and interstimulus interval effects on the N140 and the P300 components of somatosensory ERPs. Int J Neurosci. 2000 Jan;104(1):75–91.
8. Spooner RK, Eastman JA, Wiesman AI, Wilson TW. Methodological considerations for a better somatosensory gating paradigm: the impact of the inter-stimulus interval. Neuroimage. 2020 Oct;220:117048. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117048.

9. Restuccia D, Marca GD, Valeriani M, Leggio MG, Molinari M. Cerebellar damage impairs detection of somatosensory input changes: a somatosensory mismatch-negativity study. Brain. 2006 Nov;130(1):276–87.
10. Wikström H, Huttunen J, Korvenoja A, Virtanen J, Salonen O, Aronen H, Ilmoniemi RJ. Effects of interstimulus interval on somatosensory evoked magnetic fields (SEFs): a hypothesis concerning SEF generation at the primary sensorimotor cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Evoked Potentials Sect. 1996 Nov;100(6):479–87.
11. Akın G, Güdücü Ç. Inter-stimulus interval effect on tactile habituation: an electrophysiological approach. Dicle Med J.2019;46(2):327–33.
12. Mancini F, Pepe A, Bernacchia A, Di Stefano G, Mouraux A, Iannetti GD. Characterizing the short-term habituation of event-related evoked potentials. eNeuro. 2018 Sep;5(5):ENEURO.0014-18.2018.
13. Kida T, Nishihira Y, Wasaka T, Nakata H, Sakamoto M. Differential modulation of temporal and frontal components of the somatosensory N140 and the effect of interstimulus interval in a selective attention task. Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Mar;19(1):33–9.
14. Näätänen R, Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology. 1987 Jul;24(4):375–425.
15. Rosburg T, Sörös P. The response decrease of auditory evoked potentials by repeated stimulation: is there evidence for an interplay between habituation and sensitization? Clin Neurophysiol. 2016 Jan;127(1):397–408.
16. Schmid S, Wilson DA, Rankin CH. Habituation mechanisms and their importance for cognitive function. Front Integr Neurosci. 2015 Jan;8.
17. Angel RW, Quick WM, Boylls CC, Weinrich M, Rodnitzky RL. Decrement of somatosensory evoked potentials during repetitive stimulation: method and material. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1985;60.
18. Kalita J, Bhoi SK, Misra UK. Is lack of habituation of evoked potential a biological marker of migraine? Clin J Pain.2014 Aug;30(8):724–9.
19. Wang L, Ma L, Yang J, Wu J. Human somatosensory processing and artificial somatosensation. Cyborg Bionic Syst.2021;2021.
20. Alouit A, Gavaret M, Ramdani C, Lindberg PG, Dupin L. Cortical activations induced by electrical versus vibrotactile finger stimulation using EEG. Neuroimage. 2025 Jul;314:121249.
21. Hämäläinen H, Kekoni J, Sams M, Reinikainen K, Näätänen R. Human somatosensory evoked potentials to mechanical pulses and vibration: contributions of SI and SII somatosensory cortices to P50 and P100 components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1990 Feb;75(1–2):13–21.
22. Nangini C, Ross B, Tam F, Graham SJ. Magnetoencephalographic study of vibrotactile evoked transient and steady-state responses in human somatosensory cortex. Neuroimage. 2006 Oct;33(1):252–62.
23. Parkkonen E, Laaksonen K, Piitulainen H, Parkkonen L, Forss N. Modulation of the ~20-Hz motor-cortex rhythm to passive movement and tactile stimulation. Brain Behav. 2015 May;5(5).
24. Bingel U, Schoell E, Herken W, Büchel C, May A. Habituation to painful stimulation involves the antinociceptive system. Pain. 2007 Sep;131(1–2):21–30.
25. Uglem M, Omland PM, Stjern M, Gravdahl GB, Sand T. Habituation of laser-evoked potentials by migraine phase: a blinded longitudinal study. J Headache Pain. 2017 Dec;18(1).
26. Coghill RC, Gilron I, Iadarola MJ. Hemispheric lateralization of somatosensory processing. J Neurophysiol. 2001 Jun;85(6):2602–12.
27. Disbrow E, Roberts T, Poeppel D, Krubitzer L. Evidence for interhemispheric processing of inputs from the hands in human S2 and PV. J Neurophysiol. 2001 May;85(5):2236–44.
28. Kim JH, Kim SP. Neuroimaging of tactile information processing. Investig Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;27(1):1.
29. Favero JD, Luck C, Lipp OV, Marinovic W. The effect of temporal predictability on sensory gating: cortical responses inform perception. Psychophysiology. 2024 Dec;61(12).
30. Tuna Z. Validity and reliability analysis of Turkish version of Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Hand Microsurg.2020;(0):1.
31. Ozgoren M, Erdogan U, Bayazit O, Taslica S, Oniz A. Brain asymmetry measurement using EMISU (embedded interactive stimulation unit) in applied brain biophysics. Comput Biol Med. 2009 Oct;39(10):879–88.
32. Somervail R, Zhang F, Novembre G, Bufacchi RJ, Guo Y, Crepaldi M, Hu L, Iannetti GD. Waves of Change: Brain Sensitivity to Differential, not Absolute, Stimulus Intensity is Conserved Across Humans and Rats. Cereb Cortex. 2021 Jan 5;31(2):949-960.
33. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 6th ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2024.
34. Dowman R. Interstimulus interval has no effect on a mid-latency scalp potential generated by innocuous-related activity in the primary somatosensory cortex. Brain Topogr. 1997;10(2):145–54.
35. De Gennaro L, Cristiani R, Bertini M, Curcio G, Ferrara M, Fratello F, Romei V, Rossini PM. Handedness is mainly associated with an asymmetry of corticospinal excitability and not of transcallosal inhibition. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 Jun;115(6):1305–12.
36. Tandonnet C, Garry MI, Summers JJ. Selective suppression of the incorrect response implementation in choice behavior assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Psychophysiology. 2011 Apr;48(4):462–9.
37. İnanç G, Özgören M, Öniz A. Ağrısız dokunsal uyaranlar ve uyku. J Turk Sleep Med. 2014 Apr;1(1):9–15.
38. Tamè L, Braun C, Holmes NP, Farnè A, Pavani F. Bilateral representations of touch in the primary somatosensory cortex. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2016 Feb;33(1–2):48–66.
39. Güdücü Ç, Akın Öztürk G, Bek S, Öniz A. Disappearing hemispheric lateralization in tactile habituation: an electrophysiological approach. Somatosens Mot Res. 2025 Dec 15;1–12.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Clinical Sciences (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Güliz Akın Öztürk
0000-0002-9612-6577
Türkiye

Emre Eskicioğlu
0000-0002-6842-2205
Türkiye

Çağdaş Güdücü ^*
0000-0002-7735-4048
Türkiye

Publication Date

July 30, 2026

Submission Date

November 21, 2025

Acceptance Date

March 24, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 40 Number: 3

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18614/dehm.1819476

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA85HP23GW

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Akın Öztürk, G., Eskicioğlu, E., & Güdücü, Ç. (2026). Effects of hand dominance on lateralized tactile processing. Developments and Experiments in Health and Medicine, 40(3), 356-365. https://doi.org/10.18614/dehm.1819476

AMA

1.Akın Öztürk G, Eskicioğlu E, Güdücü Ç. Effects of hand dominance on lateralized tactile processing. Dev Exp Health Med. 2026;40(3):356-365. doi:10.18614/dehm.1819476

Chicago

Akın Öztürk, Güliz, Emre Eskicioğlu, and Çağdaş Güdücü. 2026. “Effects of Hand Dominance on Lateralized Tactile Processing”. Developments and Experiments in Health and Medicine 40 (3): 356-65. https://doi.org/10.18614/dehm.1819476.

EndNote

Akın Öztürk G, Eskicioğlu E, Güdücü Ç (July 1, 2026) Effects of hand dominance on lateralized tactile processing. Developments and Experiments in Health and Medicine 40 3 356–365.

IEEE

[1]G. Akın Öztürk, E. Eskicioğlu, and Ç. Güdücü, “Effects of hand dominance on lateralized tactile processing”, Dev Exp Health Med, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 356–365, July 2026, doi: 10.18614/dehm.1819476.

ISNAD

Akın Öztürk, Güliz - Eskicioğlu, Emre - Güdücü, Çağdaş. “Effects of Hand Dominance on Lateralized Tactile Processing”. Developments and Experiments in Health and Medicine 40/3 (July 1, 2026): 356-365. https://doi.org/10.18614/dehm.1819476.

JAMA

1.Akın Öztürk G, Eskicioğlu E, Güdücü Ç. Effects of hand dominance on lateralized tactile processing. Dev Exp Health Med. 2026;40:356–365.

MLA

Akın Öztürk, Güliz, et al. “Effects of Hand Dominance on Lateralized Tactile Processing”. Developments and Experiments in Health and Medicine, vol. 40, no. 3, July 2026, pp. 356-65, doi:10.18614/dehm.1819476.

Vancouver

1.Güliz Akın Öztürk, Emre Eskicioğlu, Çağdaş Güdücü. Effects of hand dominance on lateralized tactile processing. Dev Exp Health Med. 2026 Jul. 1;40(3):356-65. doi:10.18614/dehm.1819476