The gender difference was opposite in a computer-pointing task (Rohr 2006), with motor times shorter in men, favoring speed, than women, highlighting accuracy. In the present study, fairly comparable results were obtained for human subjects and monkeys, as far as the hand Ivacaftor side effects dominance is concerned. Indeed, 62% of monkeys and 55% of human subjects did not show any statistically significant Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical hand dominance, as assessed by the score derived from the

modified Brinkman board task. Concerning the CTs, the results are more difficult to interpret in monkeys. The CTs were fully coherent with the score in one case only (Mk-CA), whereas for the other monkeys, there was no, or less, consistency (Table ​(Table1).1). As reminder, the CT is a parameter Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical additional to the score, which eliminates possible biases in the score, due to inattention and/or lack of motivation of the monkey. In other words, it does not take into account the time interval between two slot manipulations. Moreover, we had taken into consideration only the last 20 both sessions at plateau, to focus on the supposedly most stable daily behavioral sessions. It may, however, be interesting to consider the CT in more sessions Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical in the plateau phase for a stricter comparison with the score for the very same sessions, although, in previous studies

(e.g., Kaeser et al. 2010, 2011), the CTs were largely stable during the entire plateau phase. The discrepancy between score and CTs is likely to be due to other parameters, such as diverted Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical attention in between the grasping of two consecutive pellets. It may also originate from the different motor habits reflected by the temporal sequence followed by the animal to visit the slots (e.g., the monkey scans the board systematically from one side to the other or from the middle and then to the sides; see Kaeser et al. 2013). Moreover, at a given time point, the animal may change prehension strategy (e.g., collect two pellets at a

time). As long as the new strategy is not fully mastered, the hand dominance may vary, although the CTs Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical remain short. In human subjects, as for the score data, the CT data showed that the hand dominance is generally consistent with the hand preference. The present study offers the opportunity to compare the hand dominance and the hand preference for both human subjects Carfilzomib and nonhuman primates. As reminder, the human subjects exhibiting hand dominance showed, most of the time, the same laterality for hand preference. This was not the case for the monkeys, where the laterality of the hand dominance did not systematically correspond to the one of the hand preference (Table ​(Table1).1). The same conclusion was met in a study conducted on four female M. fuscata Japanese monkeys (Kinoshita 1998). Concerning the hand preference, the results in human subjects are very consistent with their self-assessment.