In reply We appreciate Goldblatt's astute observation regarding the summary of Levy and Reid's 1 findings. Furthermore, we hope to bring Goldblatt back from Matthew Arnold's darkling plain to the planum temporale and pars triangularis. Surely, Goldblatt has not joined the armies of the ignorant, as he noted an error in the text not corrected by the authors. This sentence as written adds to the confusion of the already complex relationship of writing posture to lateralized language functions. The sentence as cited 2 should state: They found that right-handed subjects with a noninverted writing posture and left-handed subjects with an inverted writing posture had a right visual field advantage (left hemisphere dominance) on a verbal task, whereas right-handed subjects with an inverted writing posture and left-handed subjects with a noninverted writing posture had a left visual field advantage (right hemisphere dominance). Simply stated, the inference from these data is that
[1]
J. Levy,et al.
Variations in writing posture and cerebral organization.
,
1976,
Science.
[2]
M Moscovitch,et al.
Differences in neural organization between individuals with inverted and noninverted handwriting postures.
,
1979,
Science.
[3]
R. Ornstein,et al.
Cerebral specialization, writing posture, and motor control of writing in left-handers.
,
1979,
Science.
[4]
M. Gazzaniga,et al.
Can left-handed writing posture predict cerebral language laterality?
,
1981,
Archives of neurology.
[5]
B. Milner,et al.
Handwriting posture as related to cerebral speech lateralization, sex, and writing hand.
,
1983,
Human neurobiology.
[6]
K M Heilman,et al.
Morphologic cerebral asymmetries and handedness. The pars triangularis and planum temporale.
,
1995,
Archives of neurology.