ABSTRACT

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.

摘要

偏侧指数（LI）量化大脑和行为变量的左右不对称性，并提供一种统计上方便且看似易于解释的测量方法。然而，结构和功能不对称性的记录、计算和报告方式存在巨大差异，表明对其有效评估所需的条件几乎没有达成一致。本研究旨在就偏侧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内（即双耳听力、视觉半场技术、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检查）。偏侧性研究专家受邀参加德尔福在线调查，以评估共识并激发讨论。在第 0 轮中，106 名专家就他们认为在其专业领域内的良好实践提出了 453 份声明。陈述被组织成包含 295 条陈述的调查，然后在第一轮中要求专家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，并在第二轮中再次提交给专家。在第二轮输入中，我们提出了一组经过严格审查的关键建议，用于记录、评估和报告各种方法的偏侧性研究。