Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcsla.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcsla!cottrell
From: cottrell@sdcsla.UUCP (Gary Cottrell)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.kids,net.social
Subject: Re: Intelligence and handedness: reading speed
Message-ID: <960@sdcsla.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 16:06:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcsla.960
Posted: Fri Aug 30 16:06:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 07:23:38 EDT
References: <127@unc.unc.UUCP> <1080@ihlpg.UUCP> <950@sdcsla.UUCP> <1664@dciem.UUCP>
Reply-To: cottrell@sdcsla.UUCP (Gary Cottrell)
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Cognitive Science Lab
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.med:2299 net.kids:1868 net.social:931
Summary: Numbers wrong; effect right

In article <1664@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>
>>An aquaintance who is a psycholinguist found in an experiment that people who
>>had left-handers in their family (but were themselves right-handed) averaged
>>150 milliseconds per word faster reading time, and the variance was very 
>>small; all of these people were faster than the fastest "normal" right-hander.

>Could you check those figures?  Even reading at a slow 300 wpm allows
>only 200 msec per word, and lots of people read twice that fast.  How
>could these people average 150 msec/word faster?  They'd have to be
>reading backwards!
>-- 
>
>Martin Taylor

Sorry, you must be right. I can't recall the exact figures, only that
a) the difference was "large"
b) the left-hand-in-family did not just *on average* do better, they
were almost *all* better than the others.

gary cottrell				cottrell@nprdc (ARPA)
Institute for Cognitive Science		sdcsvax!sdcsla!cottrell (USENET)
UCSD