Jad Hamaoui
email: jhamaoui@unistra.fr

Myriam Maumy-Bertrand

Hervé Segond

Laterality and visuospatial strategies among young children: A novel 3D-2D transcription task

Keywords: Lateralization, hemispherical functional specialization, handedness, sex, visuospatial patterns

Recent findings showed that children, like adults, exhibit directional biases leading to asymmetrical drawings. This appears to be the result of a complex interaction between several biological, motoric, and cultural factors. We created a drawing task designed to investigate the influence of laterality (i.e., hemispherical functional specialization and handedness) and sex on children's graphical asymmetries. This task consists of transcribing a symmetrical threedimensional landscape model to a two-dimensional representation. Sixty-six French pre-school children, aged between 5 and 6 years, were asked to undertake the 3D-2D transcription task, as well as the classical Alter's directionality task. The novel task exhibited higher sensitivity than the Alter's directionality test when examining the spatial biases resulting from handedness, and sex. Specific drawing patterns related to these variables were identified. These results suggest that, in addition to the influence of biomechanical factors and handedness, sex plays a role in children's early graphomotor development. They also support the influence of laterality as a key factor underlying early directional biases.

Introduction

The human brain is asymmetrically organized showing complementary specialization of the two cerebral hemispheres. This Hemispherical Functional Specialization (HFS) refers to the nature of the information that each hemisphere controls as well as the way each hemisphere processes it [START_REF] Corballis | Lateralization of the human brain[END_REF]. Thus, for most of the population, the left hemisphere is dominant for language, praxis, local and sequential processing, while the right hemisphere is dominant for spatial attention, face recognition, visuospatial activities, and global processing [START_REF] Evans | The effect of variability of unattended information on global and local processing: evidence for lateralization at early stages of processing[END_REF][START_REF] Tzourio-Mazoyer | The neural bases of hemispheric specialization [Editorial[END_REF][START_REF] Vingerhoets | Phenotypes in hemispheric functional segregation? Perspectives and challenges[END_REF].

The influence of HFS on individuals' drawings is well documented. Drawings are characterized by directional patterns and distinct asymmetric features that are referred to as directional biases [START_REF] Picard | La recherche sur le dessin : quelles questions se pose-t-on actuellement en psychologie ?[END_REF]. One interpretation of these directional biases is based on cognitive, attentionalrepresentational asymmetries underpinned by HFS. An attentional bias, known as "pseudoneglect", is frequently reported in the literature among neurotypical individuals [START_REF] Bowers | Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task[END_REF] who manifest a leftward deviation when executing line bisection tasks [START_REF] Jewell | Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks[END_REF]. This phenomenon reflects the influence of HFS on visuospatial attention and, more precisely, the dominance of the right hemisphere in the treatment of spatial information and in the processing of tasks with a spatial component which results in an attentional bias in favor of the left visual field [START_REF] Kinsbourne | The cerebral basis of lateral asymmetries in attention[END_REF]. This leftward attentional bias appears to be associated with a general aesthetic preference for images with more elements and details on the right hemispace. This aesthetic preference appears to restore the imbalance created by the leftward attentional bias caused by the dominance of the right hemisphere [START_REF] Levy | Lateral dominance and aesthetic preference[END_REF]. Interindividual differences are observed concerning attentional biases in terms of importance and direction as a function of biological maturity (cerebral asymmetries, corpus callosum and sensorimotor development), reading experience (exposure to visuomotor explorations according to the script directionality), and the nature of the visual stimuli. However, it is still unclear to what extent each of these factors influence these attentional biases.

Handedness

At 3 years of age, the attentional bias in favor of the left visual field is only slight. The direction of attentional bias depends on the hand used in a line bisection task: rightward when the right hand is used and vice versa for the left hand (e.g., [START_REF] Failla | Age and responding-hand related changes in performance of neurologically normal subjects on the line-bisection and chimeric-faces tasks[END_REF][START_REF] Girelli | Cultural and biological factors modulate spatial biases over development[END_REF]. This ipsilateral bias for the used hand, called "symmetrical neglect", reflects incomplete psychomotor development and insufficient interhemispheric transfer of perceptual information, causing a difficulty in crossing the midline during motor activities. From 5 years of age, increased motor maturity allows for the emergence of attentional biases. However, there are variations depending on the nature of the presented stimuli and implied information processing. Indeed, [START_REF] Girelli | Cultural and biological factors modulate spatial biases over development[END_REF] found that 5-year-old right-handed (RH) children presented a leftward attention bias for the line bisection task, but rightward bias for the bisection of words and figure strings. This difference suggests a differential treatment of visual stimuli according to their continuous or discontinuous nature: discontinuous stimuli (e.g., series of letters) preferentially activates local processing of information for which the left hemisphere is dominant, causing attentional bias to the right. In line with this result, 5-year-old RH children also show attentional biases on a 3D spatial line bisection task (in which they had to point to the middle of lines oriented horizontally, vertically, and radially), where leftward and upward biases are more apparent for the younger children [START_REF] Patro | Visuospatial biases in preschool children: Evidence from line bisection in three-dimensional space[END_REF]. Picard and Zarhouch (2014) examined the influence of age, handedness, and script directionality (i.e., reading and writing's directionality) on the attentional bias. With a draw-a-tree task proposed to right and left-handed French (5 to 15 years old) and Moroccan (7 to 11 years old) children, the authors failed to observe any influence of age and script directionality. However, they found a leftward bias concerning the location of the figure on the graphical space (i.e., depiction of the figure more to the left of the graphic space), for the right-handers. The absence of bias in left-handed children is commonly related to a weaker lateralization generally observed in comparison with their right-handed peers [START_REF] De Schotten | A Lateralized Brain Network for Visuo-Spatial Attention[END_REF][START_REF] Willems | On the other hand: Including left-handers in cognitive neuroscience and neurogenetics[END_REF]. Indeed, right-handers are strongly lateralized, while left-handers present lesser hemispheric lateralization, fewer cerebral asymmetries, and a larger corpus callosum [START_REF] Li | Handedness-and hemisphere-related differences in small-world brain networks: A diffusion tensor imaging tractography study[END_REF]Ocklenburg & Güntürkün, 2018a).

Differences according to handedness are also found in directionality preferences. Adult righthanders predominately orient their drawings to the left when they are asked to draw familiar objects [START_REF] Alter | A cerebral origin for "Directionality[END_REF][START_REF] Karev | Directionality in right, mixed and left handers[END_REF][START_REF] Shanon | Graphological patterns as a function of handedness and culture[END_REF]. However, this directionality bias is less clear among the left-handers. While a weaker directionality bias is observed among the left-handers [START_REF] Karev | Directionality in right, mixed and left handers[END_REF][START_REF] Shanon | Graphological patterns as a function of handedness and culture[END_REF], [START_REF] Alter | A cerebral origin for "Directionality[END_REF] found the inverse effect where the left-handers favoured right directionality. This directionality difference between right-and left-handers is assumed to reflect the degree of lateralization, which is stronger in rights-handers and more heterogenous among left-handers. Therefore, there is a disparity in the results concerning lefthanders, though this may simply be due to the relative underrepresentation of left-handed (LH) participants in many handedness studies. Drawing directionality can also be influenced by the hand-movement-related asymmetries arising from a biomechanical factor associated with whether the right or left hand is used to draw. It is easier to perform outward-directed movements than inward directed movements. Thus, the handedness of a person creates a difference in the stroke's starting point and orientation [START_REF] Van Sommers | Drawing and Cognition[END_REF]. Right-handers generally follow a left-to-right stroke direction, beginning their drawing from the left side, while the opposite pattern is found among the left-handers [START_REF] Van Sommers | Drawing and Cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Van Sommers | A System for Drawing and Drawing-Related Neuropsychology[END_REF]. [START_REF] Tosun | What affects facing direction in human facial profile drawing? A meta-analytic inquiry[END_REF] conducted two meta-analyses that revealed the importance of the hand used in influencing the direction in which the object faces. They argue that figure drawing direction is determined largely by biomechanical principle. They found a significant influence of handedness irrespective of the script directionality. Consequently, handedness appears to determine how one orients the drawing of a face. Given that the front of an object tends to be drawn first, depending on whether one is using the right or the left hand to draw, the profile will end up facing leftward or rightward, respectively. However, the authors emphasis that a large unexplained variance remained even after correcting for uneven sample size and sampling error of left and righthanders. Consequently, the authors suggest that there may be other factors, such as aesthetic judgments, that may influence drawing directionality. One important factor that can affect aesthetic judgments, and which the authors could not include in their study, is sex.

Sex

Different brain activity is reported between males and females during an aesthetic judgment task.

Cela-Conde and collaborators (2009) asked their participants to rate unfamiliar artistic and natural visual stimuli as beautiful or not during magnetoencephalography. For the stimuli rated as beautiful, a bilateral activity in the parietal regions was found in females, while males showed lateralized activity to the right hemisphere. These findings may reflect different spatial strategies in assessing aesthetic preferences. Indeed, due to their lateralized activity to the right hemisphere, males are more prone to use coordinate-based strategies (i.e., relying on precise metrics), whereas females, due to their bilateral activity, will tend to use categorical spatial strategies [START_REF] Kosslyn | Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: A computational approach[END_REF]). An alternative interpretation was also given by the authors based on spatial exploration strategies. Since the right hemisphere is associated with a global and the left hemisphere with a local visual processing, males may rely more on the global features of a visual stimulus to make a judgment, whereas females will rely on both global and local features. This interpretation appears supported in the literature given that, at a functional level, boys are more strongly lateralized than girls for language processing, facial processing and spatial attention [START_REF] Bourne | Examining the sex difference in lateralisation for processing facial emotion: Does biological sex or psychological gender identity matter?[END_REF][START_REF] Ocklenburg | Sex Differences in Hemispheric Asymmetries[END_REF]. Furthermore, girls are found to perform better than boys in spatial tasks requiring a categorical process such as recalling spatial configuration [START_REF] Silverman | Sex differences in spatial abilities: Evolutionary theory and data[END_REF], and also in spatial accuracy and visuomotor skills as early as five years of age [START_REF] Auzias | Enfants gauchers, enfants droitiers: une épreuve de latéralité usuelle: rapports entre latéralité usuelle et latéralité graphique[END_REF][START_REF] O'gorman | Sex differences in spatial abilities: An evolutionary explanation[END_REF][START_REF] Karapetsas | Sex and handedness in development of visuomotor skills[END_REF]. These findings are associated with a more efficient interhemispheric connection among girls. In agreement with this, females have a denser interhemispheric connection and larger corpus callosum. The latter can be detected as soon as the foetal life, where girls present a thicker corpus callosum than boys [START_REF] Achiron | Sex-related differences in the development of the human fetal corpus callosum: in utero ultrasonographic study[END_REF]Ocklenburg & Güntürkün, 2018c; for a review on sex differences, see [START_REF] Hirnstein | Cognitive sex differences and hemispheric asymmetry: A critical review of 40 years of research[END_REF].

Consistent with the previous observations, the stronger lateralization of visuospatial attention in males was associated with a greater aesthetic preference for a left-to-right directionality than females [START_REF] Friedrich | Dynamic stimuli: Accentuating aesthetic preference biases[END_REF], and a slightly greater leftward bias in line bisection tasks [START_REF] Jewell | Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks[END_REF]. Similarly, De Agostini et al (2011) reported a sex difference with visual aesthetic preferences by comparing French children (aged from 7 to 10 years) and adults. They presented static images (e.g., lamp), moving images (e.g., duck), and landscapes (e.g., an umbrella in front of a beach) oriented either from left to right or from right to left. They asked their participants to indicate which of the stimuli were more aesthetically pleasing. Similar results were found for the static and moving objects. For left-handers, adult men preferred rightward oriented images, whereas adult women did not show any directionality preference. In contrast, the LH children (boys and girls) preferred leftward oriented images. All the righthanders preferred a rightward directionality. These findings reflect the contribution of biological factors, such as handedness and sex, in visuospatial organization. The authors suggested that the shift to a rightward preference among LH males could be the consequence of the exposure to the left-to-right script directionality. However, LH females appear to be less sensitive to this cultural factor, explaining the absence of directional preferences. The landscape stimuli resulted in a significant preference for a rightward directionality which increased with age for males, compared to females who showed no significant difference. Indeed, RH or LH girls and females did not have any directional preferences.

Overall, the results suggest that aesthetic preference for moving and static images may be more sensitive to cultural factors (i.e., script directionality), whereas the aesthetic preference for landscape images may be more influenced by HFS (see also [START_REF] Chokron | Reading habits influence aesthetic preference[END_REF]. However, [START_REF] Kebbe | How Culture, Age, and Manual Dominance Affect Directionality in Drawing Side View Objects[END_REF] failed to replicate the significant sex difference found by De [START_REF] De Agostini | Visual aesthetic preference: Effects of handedness, sex, and age-related reading/writing directional scanning experience[END_REF]. They asked children (aged 6 to 10 years) and adults to draw a side view of different objects (e.g., vehicles, faces, animals, tools). They found a significant difference according due the script directionality for the older children and adults only. The absence of a sex difference can be explained by two reasons. Firstly, as the authors noted, it may be a consequence of the low number of males and females per group in their study. Secondly, both static and moving objects were used in this study which appear to be more influenced by the script directionality, whilst the landscape objects appear to be more influenced by HFS (Chokron & De Agositni, 2000;[START_REF] De Agostini | Visual aesthetic preference: Effects of handedness, sex, and age-related reading/writing directional scanning experience[END_REF]. [START_REF] Ishii | Lateral biases and reading direction: A dissociation between aesthetic preference and line bisection[END_REF] investigated the difference between moving/statics and landscape images further. They conducted a study on adults using a line bisection task and a similar aesthetic preference task as the one used by De Agostini et al (2011). Interestingly, they found a correlation between landscape stimuli and the line bisection task. The authors suggested that landscape images and the line bisection task share common features since they require an evaluation of spatial information spread across a horizontal line. Based on the pseudoneglect literature, they argued that the degree of the attentional bias is stronger for stimuli with long horizontal and short vertical axes, thus the correlation between the two tasks. However, this is not the case for moving and static images, which due to their form, are less influenced by attentional biases and more sensitive to external factors, such as script directionality [START_REF] Ishii | Lateral biases and reading direction: A dissociation between aesthetic preference and line bisection[END_REF].

Together, the literature suggests that visuospatial attentional bias and positioning asymmetries in drawing activities mainly reflect HFS and specifically the right hemisphere dominance of visual attention. These biases are more pronounced among individuals with a higher degree of lateralization and can be modulated by biological factors such as handedness and sex. We should note that the script directionality also plays an important role in the graphomotor asymmetries [START_REF] Abed | Cultural Influences on Visual Scanning Patterns[END_REF][START_REF] Chokron | Reading habits influence aesthetic preference[END_REF][START_REF] Ishii | Lateral biases and reading direction: A dissociation between aesthetic preference and line bisection[END_REF][START_REF] Kebbe | How Culture, Age, and Manual Dominance Affect Directionality in Drawing Side View Objects[END_REF][START_REF] Ossandón | Spatial biases in viewing behavior[END_REF]Picard & Zarhouch, 2014;[START_REF] Rinaldi | Spatial-numerical consistency impacts on preschoolers' numerical representation: Children can count on both peripersonal and personal space[END_REF][START_REF] Rinaldi | The effects of hemispheric dominance, literacy acquisition, and handedness on the development of visuospatial attention: A study in preschoolers and second graders[END_REF][START_REF] Tversky | Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions[END_REF] for reviews see [START_REF] Page | Is beauty in the hand of the writer? Influences of aesthetic preferences through script directions, cultural, and neurological factors: a literature review[END_REF][START_REF] Vaid | Asymmetries in representational drawing: Alternatives to a laterality account[END_REF].

A complex interaction of several biological, motoric, and cultural factors leads to the directional biases observed in children and adults [START_REF] Rinaldi | The effects of hemispheric dominance, literacy acquisition, and handedness on the development of visuospatial attention: A study in preschoolers and second graders[END_REF]. Whilst these studies investigated the perceptual biases, they scarcely considered the interaction between all these factors, and the degree of the influence of each mechanism underlying them [START_REF] Tosun | What affects facing direction in human facial profile drawing? A meta-analytic inquiry[END_REF]. Therefore investigating these factors simultaneously is important for understanding how biological and cultural factors interact at a perceptual and representational level [START_REF] De Agostini | Visual aesthetic preference: Effects of handedness, sex, and age-related reading/writing directional scanning experience[END_REF].

Proposed study

The aim of this study is to investigate the extent to which the HFS, modulated by the handedness and sex, can influence graphical productions in children. Based on the previous findings, we created a new drawing task which is both fun for the child and can probe the following underlying graphic asymmetries in children: 1. attentional biases related to HFS, through graphic density and drawing directionality; 2. biomechanical preferences related to handedness; 3. aesthetic preferences that develops with age. From this, we will identify specific graphical patterns, allowing us to investigate, in a comprehensive way, the interaction between the key contributing factors.

In our task, pre-schoolers are asked to transcribe a symmetrical three-dimensional (3D) landscape model, into a two-dimensional (2D) representation on an A4 landscape-oriented sheet.

These conditions were chosen for several reasons. Firstly, it is necessary to try to distinguish between biological and cultural factors. For this purpose, we focused on a population of preschoolers with a typical development (mean age 5 years and 6 months). Children at this age are less exposed to literacy than the older ones, which limits the potential influence of script directionality. Indeed, past studies on French children did not find any influence of script directionality among children of 6 years of age [START_REF] Fagard | The effects of reading-writing direction on the asymmetry of space perception and directional tendencies: A comparison between French and Tunisian children[END_REF][START_REF] Kebbe | How Culture, Age, and Manual Dominance Affect Directionality in Drawing Side View Objects[END_REF][START_REF] Picard | Leftward spatial bias in children's drawing placement: Hemispheric activation versus directional hypotheses[END_REF]. However, categorial and coordinate spatial relations are present at this age, so our participants will know how to establish spatial relationships of up/down and left/right [START_REF] Koenig | The development of spatial relation representations: Evidence from studies of cerebral lateralization[END_REF].

Secondly, at an intra-representational level, children generally depict their internal model of reality around 5 years of age [START_REF] Barrett | Symbolism and intellectual realism in children's drawings[END_REF][START_REF] Piaget | La représentation de l'espace chez l'enfant[END_REF][START_REF] Luquet | Children's drawing) Le Dessin Enfantin[END_REF].

Hence, we suppose that our participants' drawings will be the product of their mental representations and not an imitation of the outside world. Thus, their graphical transcription of a realistic 3D model should be a good indicator of HFS influence on spatial attention and the processing of visuo-spatial information.

Thirdly, we chose a landscape as our 3D model since landscape objects seems to be a better reflection of HFS than other objects. Thus, we suppose that the graphical patterns, identified by the 3D-2D task, will be influenced mostly by handedness and sex. Therefore, the detection of specific graphical patterns is needed in order to consider this novel drawing task as a valid assessment. We should observe the following patterns:

1. Biomechanically, we expect that RH children will tend to draw from left to right, whilst LH children will tend to draw from right to left. Furthermore, the RH are expected to begin their drawing from the left (left point of origin) and the LH from the right (right point of origin).

2. According to handedness, we expect more drawings to be oriented to the left among our RH participants, while an opposite pattern will be expected among the LH. Furthermore, we expect that the RH children will draw a more asymmetrical 2D representation of the 3D symmetrical model, reflecting their stronger HFS. We expect LH children will draw more balanced graphical production due to their lesser lateralization.

3. We expect that girls will produce a better quality of drawing which is more balanced and symmetrical, since they present a lesser degree of HFS and greater interhemispheric connection than boys.

Participants

Sixty-six children participated (mean age = 67.9 months, sd = 3.78 months). The children's handedness was assessed using the Auzias laterality test (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).

The participants were pre-reader children and from nursery classes located in the Paris region (Aulnay-Sous-Bois), and from three kindergartens in Alsace, France. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Strasbourg (see https://cil.unistra.fr/registre.html#proc-374). Preliminary academic authorization and parental authorization were obtained before the beginning of the study. Only volunteer participants contributed to this study. None of the children suffered from any psychomotor difficulties that could hinder their writing or drawing performance.

Materials

Auzias laterality test [START_REF] Auzias | Enfants gauchers, enfants droitiers: une épreuve de latéralité usuelle: rapports entre latéralité usuelle et latéralité graphique[END_REF]: This test measures manual preference. Ten items are presented in order to calculate a Laterality Index (LI). The experimenter asks the participants to manipulate different familiar objects and perform different actions (striking a match, erasing, ringing a small bell, eating with a spoon, shining a shoe, combing hair, transferring water from one container to another, brush teeth). Each object is placed in front of the participants in turn.

The experimenter observes the manipulation and notes "L" if the participants use their left hand and "R" for the right one. Then, the LI is calculated by the following equation: LI = [(nR -nL) / (nR + nL)] x 100 where nR and nL correspond respectively to the number of right-and left-hand uses. LI scores must be between -100 and -50 to be identified as a LH, or between +50 and +100 to be RH. [START_REF] Alter | A cerebral origin for "Directionality[END_REF]: The children are verbally asked to draw six different items: fish, airplane, spoon, boat, bus, and car. The orientation of the drawing is noted as either left (L), right (R), or front (=), making it possible to calculate a Directionality Index (DI) = (nR-nL) / 6 where nL is equivalent to the number of drawings oriented to the left, nR to the number of drawings oriented to the right and 6 is the total number of drawings. The individual DI is distributed between -1 and +1.

Alter directionality test

Two-dimensional (2D) transcription of the three-dimensional (3D) model: This task consisted of the presentation of a 3D model with 3 different planes (see Figure 1a). This model had to be reproduced on an A4 sheet by memory. Different coloured pencils are left at the disposal of the child. At the same time as the child draws, the experimenter transcribes the child's actions on an evaluation sheet (see Figure 1b).

________________________________

Insert Figure 1 This task allows us to observe the characteristics and variations of the graphical strategies employed by the children reflecting motor dominance, attentional biases, and mental representations. Together these can be used as a proxy for the degree of HFS (see "Experimental Design and Scoring" for a detailed explanation of all the variables). The reproduction on paper encourages the child to create an orientation. For example, the top of the paper will be the distal part and the bottom is the proximal part [START_REF] Davis | Conflict between canonicality and array-specificity in young children's drawings[END_REF]. Thus, a conversion of the vertical plane into a horizontal one is needed to be able to code the elements perceived in 3D into 2D.

Procedure

Three trained experimenters each separately assessed a different set of children. Afterwards, the lead experimenter carried out the scoring. The assessments were conducted in an isolated room to avoid any alteration of the child's concentration. Each experimenter, alone with the participant in the evaluation room, is first seated on the child's side during the handedness and directionality assessments. These tests are presented in the form of small games to promote the motivation of the child. After determining the manual preference and drawing directionality, the experimenter shows the 3D model and retreats slightly behind the child. The table and chairs are child-sized, and thus do not interfere with the motor tasks. At the end of the transcription task, the experimenter accompanies the child into his class while giving some compliments on the achieved work.

Instructions

The examiner stands beside the child and says (for the original instructions in French, please see Then he follows the enumeration made by the child, repeating after him to encourage him. This helps the child to pay attention on all the present elements (avoiding an exclusive focus on the main and attractive element of the model, which is the house -i.e., plane B). In addition, the examiner specifies the relations between the elements located on the foreground and background compared to the middle: "In the centre, we see a symmetrical house, just in front is a river surrounded by bushes, and behind the house we see six trees". After the transcription tools are placed in front of the child, the examiner states the following instruction after hiding the model: "You are now going to draw everything you saw". The examiner then steps back and closely follows the evolution of the graphical production.

Experimental design and scoring

The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of handedness and sex on drawing directionality (underpinned by visuo-motor coordination) and spatial strategies underlying the 2D reproduction of a 3D model (underpinned by visuo-spatial perception such as depth, perspective, relative size). Thus, our independent variables are sex and handedness. Eight dependent variables are measured in our experiment:

1. The dominant drawing directionality (cf. Alter's test): A negative value on the ID was quoted as left directionality preference and a positive value was considered as a right preference. A score of 0 was quoted as a balanced directionality (i.e., 3 drawings oriented to the left, 3 to the right).

The following variables are only assessed by the 3D-2D transcription task (see Figure 2 for a sample of the children's 2D transcriptions): 2. Origin point: This variable reflects the point at which the child begins his drawing. It can be situated either to the left, the centre, or the right. Usually, the point of origin is a good indicator of the progression axis.

3. Progression axis: this is the dominant line's direction -vertically or horizontally oriented. We scored lines from left to right and from right to left in two separate categories, while vertical strokes (down-up or up-down) are scored in a single category. 4. Density of the elements: The density is relative to the area where the different elements of the drawing are located. It is evaluated from the number of occupied squares across the whole surface of the page (divided into 1 cm squares of each side). Thus, the density is determined relative to the middle of the vertical and horizontal axes of the graphical support. We can observe a right, left or balanced density. We assume that the density of the elements reflects the attentional bias underpinned by the dominance of the right hemisphere.

Complementarity of the main graphical elements:

The level of detail represented by more drawing and colouring on each side of the house is evaluated. The evaluation of the degree of complexity on one side or the other of the house determines a left, right or a balanced complementarity. Since the attentional bias is associated with an aesthetic preference for images with more elements on one side, we believe that the complementarity of the graphical elements will reflect the aesthetic preferences of the participants.

Correct or incorrect representation:

The quality of the graphical production depends on the depicted and omitted elements as well as the spatial relations between the three planes characterizing the 3D model. A correct representation is identified by the offset between each of the three levels along a vertical axis, which is key to the translation from the 3D spatial "front-behind" relation to a 2D "bottom up relation " [START_REF] Ingram | The young child's representation of depth in drawing: Process and product[END_REF]. Thus, a drawing where the river is depicted on the bottom, the house in the middle and the trees on both sides of the house was considered a correct representation. Other representations were therefore considered incorrect.

7. Placement order: The depiction order of the three planes (A, B and C) represents the transcription strategy. This variable will show us the different graphic strategies adopted by the children. For example, a BAC strategy will represent a drawing where the child starts to draw the house (i.e., the main element), followed by the river and finishes by drawing the trees (i.e., the background). However, due to the diversity of the strategies encountered during the assessment, we chose to combine all the results with a low frequency into one category. This category was named "other" and included the following strategies: ACB, B, CAB, CBA (see Table 1 for all the indicators used in the MCA analysis with their respective categories and frequencies).

8. Spatial arrangement: This characterizes the orientation of the drawing based on all the elements. We divided this variable into three categories: A, B and C. Category A was defined as when the river is depicted on the left side of the house and/or the trees are on the right side (a leftward orientation). Category B was defined as a symmetrical drawing where the house and river are in the middle of the picture and the trees are present on both sides of the house.

Category C was defined as when the river is depicted on the right side of the house and/or the trees are on the left side (a rightward orientation of the drawing).

________________________________

Insert Figure 2 about here

________________________________

Statistical analysis

Our statistical analysis was divided into two parts. The first one consisted of conducting an exploratory analysis allowing us to investigate the children's graphical patterns. We conducted a cluster analysis to classify our participants into different groups. Each of these groups represent participants with common graphical characteristics. These common characteristics allowed us to uncover specific graphical patterns. However, since we have a large number of variables, it is better to perform a dimensional reduction of variables before the clustering [START_REF] Mitsuhiro | Reduced k-means clustering with MCA in a lowdimensional space[END_REF]. Therefore, the exploratory analysis consisted of two parts

The first part of the analysis was conducting a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) to perform the dimensional reduction, and to examine the relationship between our several nominal variables (i.e., sex, handedness, and the graphical variables). The MCA is a multivariate exploratory analysis that does not need any distributional assumptions and is used to investigate the relation between the variable response categories [START_REF] Greenacre | Theory and applications of correspondence analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Sourial | Correspondence analysis is a useful tool to uncover the relationships among categorical variables[END_REF]. It allows us to map our data as points in a low-dimensional space, enabling us to examine underlying structures (i.e., dimensions) best suited to uncover the correlations between our variables [START_REF] Mitsuhiro | Reduced k-means clustering with MCA in a lowdimensional space[END_REF] The second part of the exploratory analysis consisted of conducting a Hierarchical Clustering (HC) to group our participants according to their similarities along the relevant dimensions obtained by the MCA. The statistical analyses were done using R 4.0.3 (R Core Team, 2020). All the study's variables are nominal. The MCA and HCPC functions of the FactoMineR package were used to conduct the MCA and the clustering analyses [START_REF] Lê | FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis[END_REF]. In addition, we used the factoextra, FactoInvestigate, and ade4 packages to optimise our interpretations and graphical representations of the MCA [START_REF] Dray | The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists[END_REF][START_REF] Kassambara | Factoextra: extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses[END_REF][START_REF] Lê | FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis[END_REF][START_REF] Thuleau | FactoInvestigate: automatic description of factorial analysis[END_REF].

The final part of our statistical analysis consisted in conducting Generalized Linear Models (GLM) to examine if our independent variables (i.e., sex and handedness) can predict the graphical variables. These GLM with logistic or multinomial dependent variables were computed in Jamovi 1.1.9 [START_REF] Gallucci | GAMLj: General analyses for linear models[END_REF]Jamovi project, 2020) and in R 4.0.3. (R Core Team, 2020) using the multinom function of the nnet and ggeffect packages [START_REF] Lüdecke | ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models[END_REF][START_REF] Venables | Random and Mixed Effects[END_REF].

Results

To investigate the relationship between our nominal variables, we conducted an MCA combined with an HC. This method was designed to identify the relationship between our variables and to discern any specific patterns across our participants in a multidimensional space. This allowed us to create specific categories for the children's graphical productions.

________________________________

Insert Table 1 about here ________________________________ For this analysis, we should note that participants 52 and 54 were deleted due to missing data in the complementarity, representation, and spatial arrangement variables due to a poor graphical production. The maximum number of dimensions are determined by subtracting total number of variables (J) from total number of categories (K) : Number of dimensions = K -J.

From the 18 initially obtained dimensions, dimensions 1, 2 and 3 presented a greater inertia than those obtained by the 0.95-quantile of random distribution. Thus, we consider that the explained variance of the first three dimensions (40.16%) is adequate to show any real correlations between the variables (see Figure 3 for the Scree plot of the first 10 dimensions and Table I in Appendix 2 for the cumulative variance percentage).

_______________________________

Insert Figure 3 about here

________________________________

To understand the characteristics of each of our three dimensions, we must identify the variables that contribute the most to each of them. Therefore, we conducted correlation plots to identify the contribution of the variables on the three dimensions (see Figure 4, and Figure 5 for the confidence ellipses of the significant variables). Higher correlations represent higher contributions of the variables on each dimension. The first dimension is strongly characterized by handedness, biomechanical factors (progression axes and the origin point), and, to a lesser degree, by density and placement order. The second dimension is strongly characterized by complementarity and spatial arrangement variables, followed by density, representation, and sex variables. Similar to dimension 2, dimension 3 is strongly influenced by complementarity and spatial arrangement. However, we observe a significant influence of the origin point, the directionality, and the placement order (see Table II in Appendix 3 for the effect size and p value of all the variables on these three dimensions).

________________________________

Insert Figure 4, Figure 5 about here ________________________________ After identifying the main variables contributing to each of the three dimensions, we ran a bidimensional plot to observe the distribution and the correlation of the categories among these dimensions (see Figure 6 for the bidimensional plot).

________________________________

Insert Figure 6 about here ________________________________ This bidimensional plot gives us a global pattern of the relationships between our variable categories. Each variable category is represented by a red triangle. The distance between the red triangles gives us a measure of their similarity or their dissimilarity. Thus, correlated variable categories will be close to each other, whilst negatively correlated categories will be on opposite sides of a dimension. We should note also that farther the variable category is away from the origin of the factor map (i.e., Figure 6), the better it is represented (see Table III in Appendix 4 for the estimates and p values of all the categories characterizing the three dimensions).

In dimension 1, the results show that right-handedness is strongly correlated to a left point of origin, a left-to-right progression axis, and to a left density. We also observe that the righthanders have a strong correlation with the BAC order of placement (i.e., drawing firstly the house, followed by the river and lastly the trees). Conversely, left-handedness is strongly correlated with a right-to-left progression axis, a right and central origin point. It is less strongly but still significantly correlated with a balanced density, vertical progression axes and diverse order of placement strategies (e.g., BCA, ACB).

In dimension 2, the results show that girls are significantly correlated with a balanced density and complementarity, a B spatial arrangement (i.e., symmetrical drawing), correct representation (i.e., the river is drawn at the bottom, the house in the centre and the trees in the background), and with an order of placement ABC (i.e., beginning with the foreground, followed by the midground, and ending with the background,). However, boys, are loosely correlated with a right density, a right or left complementarity, spatial arrangements A and C (i.e., asymmetrical drawings orientated to the left or right) and incorrect representations.

Dimension 3 shows that right and balanced directionality are associated mainly with a right origin point, a right complementarity, and an A spatial arrangement (leftward orientation of the 3D/2D task). However, left directionality is associated with a centred point of origin, a C spatial arrangement (rightward orientation of the 3D/2D task) and left complementarity.

The MCA presented a general view of the relationship between our variables and categories. The second step is to perform a cluster analysis to investigate any specific patterns explained by inter-individual differences between our participants.

Five clusters were identified using Ward's method. This distance measure, which can be applied to a correspondence analysis, is an agglomerative clustering method based on the sum-of-square criterion and generates clusters in a multivariate space [START_REF] Husson | Exploratory multivariate analysis by example using R[END_REF][START_REF] Murtagh | Correspondence analysis and data coding with Java and R[END_REF][START_REF] Murtagh | Ward's hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms implement Ward's criterion?[END_REF]. Each cluster includes participants with similar characteristics (see Figure 7 for the visualization of the individuals' clusters).

________________________________

Insert Figure 7 about here ________________________________ Our classification analysis is in line with the MCA results, but allows us to make more accurate observations. RH and LH children were clustered into two separate groups: clusters 1 and 2 represented the right-handers, whilst clusters 4 and 5 represented the left-handers (see Table 2 for the characteristics of the five clusters; for all the results with their coefficients values, see Tables IV andV in Appendix 5).

The right-handers were distributed nearly equally between the two clusters regrouping respectively 40.00% and 45.70% of the total number of right-handers. A left point of origin and left-to-right strokes were found in common between these two clusters. However, the first group were characterized by a left density and complementarity, a rightward asymmetrical drawing (spatial arrangement C), a BAC order of placement, and a left directionality preference. The second group was characterized by balanced transcription and the correct representation of the 3D model, symmetrical drawing, and Alter's test drawings that were oriented rightward (see cluster 2). Conversely, LH participants were unevenly distributed between their two respective clusters where cluster 4 contained 58.62% of the LH children, and cluster 5 contained 31.03%.

The cluster 4 was characterized by vertical and right-to-left lines, a right origin point, balanced density and complementarity, symmetrical drawing and an ABC placement order. In cluster 5, participants showed a right-to-left axis of progression, a left complementarity, a centre point of origin, a rightward asymmetrical graphical production and a BCA order of placement. Cluster 3 was characterized by 7 children presenting no specific laterality or biomechanical features. These children had a rightward complementarity, a leftward asymmetrical drawing, a variable order of placement, and a rightward drawing on Alter's test.

________________________________

Insert Table 2 about here ________________________________ Overall, the five obtained clusters corresponded to five groups of participants characterized by both the direction and the degree of their handedness. For the right-handers, cluster 1 represents the strong right-handers and cluster 2 represents the weak right-handers. For the left-handers, cluster 4 represents the weak left-handers and cluster 5 represents the strong left-handers.

The overall exploratory results show that the 3D/2D depiction task successfully categorised participants according to handedness and sex. The second part of our statistical analysis is testing these findings with GLM in which handedness and sex are the predictors. A significance threshold of 0.05 was adopted for all statistical analyses. For post-hoc tests, the p values are adjusted using Holm's correction. In the following section, we will present only the significant models and their follow-up post-hoc tests (see Table 3 for the model coefficients, and Table 4 for the predicted probabilities).

Complementarity

A significant difference is found between boys and girls in the drawings' complementarity (χ²(2, N=65) = 9.55, p=.01, R 2 =.08). Girls favoured significantly more balanced complementarity compared to boys (z = 3.11, p =.01).

Density

The results revealed a significant difference between right-and left-handers in the drawings' density (χ²(2, N=66) = 9.78, p=.01, R 2 =.07). Left-handers are significantly more likely to draw a balanced density compared to the right-handers (z = 2.86, p =.02), while the right-handers favoured significant left density (z = 3.04, p =.02).

Origin point

The results revealed a significant interaction between sex and handedness (χ²(2, N=66) = 6.78, p=.03, R 2 =.33). The origin point of the drawing was significantly different among right-and lefthanders. RH boys generally began their drawing from the left compared to the LH boys and girls (z = 3.18, p=.04, z = 4.47, p<.01 respectively), whilst LH boys often started their drawing from the right more than the RH boys and girls (z = 3.67, p=.02, z = 5.29, p<.01, respectively).

Similar results are obtained for girls. Indeed, RH girls were more prone to begin their drawing from the left compared to the LH boys and girls (z = 5.29, p<.01, z = 7.42, p<.001 respectively), while LH girls preferred to start their drawing from the right significantly more than the RH girls (z = 4.23, p=.01) and near significance compared to RH boys (z=2.95, p=.06).

However, after a post-hoc test (with Holm correction), neither RH boys differentiate significantly from RH girls nor LH boys differentiate significantly from LH girls. The fact that we do not observe any sex difference in the post-hoc results while the main effect of the interaction is significant may be due to a lack of statistical power. However, we notice that without any p correction, the results show that LH girls tend to begin their drawing from the centre more often than LH boys (z = 1.95, p=.09). This tendency, combined with the strong influence of handedness, may have contributed to the significance of the interaction's main effect model.

Progression axis

A significant difference is observed between handedness and the axes of progression (χ²(2, N=66) = 78.68, p<.001, R 2 =.62). The right-handers typically oriented their strokes from left to right (z = 22.13, p<.001), while the left-handers typically oriented their stroke from right to left (z = 10.31, p<.001). Moreover, we should note too that left-handers showed a tendency to draw more vertical lines than the right-handers (z = 2.16, p=.09).

________________________________

Insert Table 3 andTable 4

Discussion

The study's aim was to identify typical graphical characteristics according to individual differences prior to the acquisition of literacy. We investigated children's depiction patterns using a novel 3D/2D transcription task. We were able to report several results reflecting the influence of handedness and sex on children's graphical productions. We should note that even though the exploratory analysis showed strong relationship between our variables, we demonstrated a statistical significance through our models only for some of them. Nonetheless, we decided to interpret all our findings from the perspective of future studies to further investigate these observations.

Sex

Our results showed a significant influence of sex on the graphical complementarity. A balanced complementarity was presented by girls, while boys presented a lateralized one. Furthermore, girls appeared to find it easier to make drawings characterized by a balanced density and a symmetrical graphical production. They were also associated with the spatial arrangement B, while boys showed asymmetrical and lateralized drawings (spatial arrangements A and C). This is in line with previous studies where males are shown to exhibit more aesthetic preferences to asymmetrical drawings (notably a rightward directional preference), contrary to females who exhibit a weaker, or even an absence of aesthetic preferences for asymmetrical drawings [START_REF] De Agostini | Visual aesthetic preference: Effects of handedness, sex, and age-related reading/writing directional scanning experience[END_REF][START_REF] Friedrich | Dynamic stimuli: Accentuating aesthetic preference biases[END_REF]. These findings may be explained by a lesser HFS in girls allowing them greater gestural flexibility and weaker spatial bias. The boys drew more asymmetrical drawings displaying stronger spatial bias that may be related to a stronger degree of HFS [START_REF] Bourne | Examining the Relationship Between Degree of Handedness and Degree of Cerebral Lateralization for Processing Facial Emotion[END_REF][START_REF] De Agostini | Visual aesthetic preference: Effects of handedness, sex, and age-related reading/writing directional scanning experience[END_REF]Ocklenburg & Güntürkün, 2018c;[START_REF] Segond | Le Toucher en Développement : Latéralité, Cécité, Autisme. Des activités perceptives au soin[END_REF]. Furthermore, girls were more likely to create correct graphical productions than boys. Indeed, their drawings tended not only to include all the perceived elements, but also to correctly transcribe their respective positions into the 2D space based on their relative positions in the 3D space. The boys were more prone to omit elements in addition to incorrect representation characterized by a negligence of spatial relationship between the 3D model elements (e.g., the river and the house were depicted on the same level). This observation may be the reflection of a developmental phenomenon. Drawing requires a visual perception and visual imagery for encoding spatial relations between objects [START_REF] Guérin | Cognitive processing of drawing abilities[END_REF]. Vinter and colleagues showed that five-year-old children generally depict isolated and independent elements with an occasional juxtaposition of these elements [START_REF] Vinter | Graphic syntax and representational development. Drawing and the Non-Verbal Mind: A Life-Span Perspective[END_REF]. These findings were only spotted in the graphical productions of boys. This observation may reflect the difference in maturation trajectories between boys and girls. Indeed, until ~7 years of age, girls present an earlier cognitive and psychomotor development [START_REF] Flatters | Manual control age and sex differences in 4 to 11 year old children[END_REF][START_REF] Peyre | Sex differences in psychomotor development during the preschool period: A longitudinal study of the effects of environmental factors and of emotional, behavioral, and social functioning[END_REF]. It is only later, around the seventh and eighth year, that children will be able to integrate the totality of the perceived object and take into consideration spatial characteristics, in addition to creating graphical productions identical to what is perceived [START_REF] Barrett | Symbolism and intellectual realism in children's drawings[END_REF][START_REF] Luquet | Children's drawing) Le Dessin Enfantin[END_REF]Piaget & Inhelder,1969). Thus, the sex difference found in our study may illustrate the better graphical productions associated with girls' earlier maturation. Our work corresponds with studies that showed that males do not outperform females on all the visuo-spatial tasks, and is in line with the authors who argued that girls may be better than boys on spatial tasks requiring the recall of the spatial configuration of objects [START_REF] Rybash | Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial representations: A reappraisal[END_REF]; see for a review [START_REF] Jager | On the hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial relations: A review of the current evidence[END_REF].

Handedness did significantly influence the starting point of graphical production and the strokes' orientation. Most right-handers showed a strong preference for a left origin point and left-to-right progression axis, whereas left-handers preferred a right origin point and right-to-left progression axis. These results highlights the influence of biomechanical factors, particularly the preference for performing extension movements with outward motions of the body [START_REF] Picard | Impact of manual preference on directionality in children's drawings[END_REF][START_REF] Van Sommers | Drawing and Cognition[END_REF][START_REF] Vaid | Asymmetries in representational drawing: Alternatives to a laterality account[END_REF]. Furthermore, the LH children showed heterogeneity in their results, tending to draw more vertical strokes, and beginning their depictions from the centre. This finding may reflect the weaker lateralization generally associated with left-handedness [START_REF] Christman | Individual differences in stroop and local-global processing: A possible role of interhemispheric interaction[END_REF][START_REF] Hellige | Unity of Thought and Action: Varieties of Interaction Between the Left and Right Cerebral Hemispheres[END_REF][START_REF] Luders | When more is less: Associations between corpus callosum size and handedness lateralization[END_REF]. Also, the right-handers showed a strong leftward density, while the left-handers presented a balanced graphical density. It is in line with existence of a leftward attentional bias in righthanders due to the right hemisphere specializing in visuospatial processing [START_REF] Jewell | Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks[END_REF][START_REF] Picard | Leftward spatial bias in children's drawing placement: Hemispheric activation versus directional hypotheses[END_REF]. As for the left-handers, a weaker lateralization, and a greater interaction between the two hemispheres [START_REF] Karev | Directionality in right, mixed and left handers[END_REF] may lead them to a more balanced graphical production.

We did not observe a significant relationship between directionality and handedness in the Alter's directionality test. This is consistent with past studies in which no difference in directionality preference among five year old children was found [START_REF] Kebbe | How Culture, Age, and Manual Dominance Affect Directionality in Drawing Side View Objects[END_REF][START_REF] Picard | Impact of manual preference on directionality in children's drawings[END_REF]. Furthermore, in line with previous findings, landscape objects, represented in our study by the 3D-2D task, may be more sensitive to the HFS than static/moving objects, represented here by the Alter's directionality test (Chokron & De Agositni, 2000;[START_REF] De Agostini | Visual aesthetic preference: Effects of handedness, sex, and age-related reading/writing directional scanning experience[END_REF][START_REF] Ishii | Lateral biases and reading direction: A dissociation between aesthetic preference and line bisection[END_REF]. However, we should note that the cluster analysis showed that the two RH groups (i.e., cluster 1 and 2, see Table 2) were characterized by opposite directionality preferences, whereas the LH did not have any directionality preference. This supports previous results where left-handers present a greater variability in directionality compared to right-handers [START_REF] De Agostini | The influence of handedness on profile and line drawing directionality in children, young, and older normal adults[END_REF][START_REF] Railo | Right visual field advantage for perceived contrast: Correlation with an auditory bias and handedness[END_REF]. This also supports [START_REF] Karev | Directionality in right, mixed and left handers[END_REF] who argues that left-handedness may reduce the emergence of a preferred directionality since a weaker functional asymmetry is found among them. As for the difference between the two RH clusters, a leftward directionality was observed by the children of the cluster 1. This cluster is characterized also by a preference for a left origin point, density, and complementarity. Rightward directionality preference characterized cluster 2, which include children who also showed balanced complementarity and symmetrical drawing. Although it is not frequently observed, a rightward directionality preference among the right-handers was found in a previous study on children aged 7 to 10 years [START_REF] De Agostini | The influence of handedness on profile and line drawing directionality in children, young, and older normal adults[END_REF]. The HFS may have played a role in the difference among our RH children. Equally, it is possible that the level of development of five-year-old children may not be sufficient to consider the directionality of the drawing as a relevant characteristic or be sufficiently sensitive to individual traits. With the acquisition of literacy and the influence of culture, we expect that this diversity in directionality preferences found in our study will decrease, while a stronger preferences, or even new preferences, will emerge later for the left-handers [START_REF] Alter | A cerebral origin for "Directionality[END_REF][START_REF] Faghihi | Spatial bias in figure placement in representational drawing: Associations with handedness and script directionality[END_REF][START_REF] Kebbe | How Culture, Age, and Manual Dominance Affect Directionality in Drawing Side View Objects[END_REF][START_REF] Picard | Impact of manual preference on directionality in children's drawings[END_REF][START_REF] Portex | Cultural influence on directional tendencies in children's drawing[END_REF][START_REF] Vaid | Asymmetries in representational drawing: Alternatives to a laterality account[END_REF].

Regarding the graphical strategies, most of the children began by drawing the house (approximately 71%, see Table 1). This corroborates the general observation that young children tend to start their drawing with the main component of a figure [START_REF] Vinter | Graphic syntax and representational development. Drawing and the Non-Verbal Mind: A Life-Span Perspective[END_REF]. This observation shows a good ability to distinguish the essential elements from the less essential, something that is not observed in younger children. The latter pay equal attention to all the details of a visual scene (local processing of information) without emphasising the main theme (global processing of information). The global and simultaneous processing of information characterizing spontaneous visual perception develops gradually. The observer only uses more local processing of visual information when required by the task for example when looking to discriminate the fine details and differences (e.g., recognition of a face within a group of individuals).

Our results showed that three graphical strategies were adopted by nearly all the children. A difference was found between the RH and LH children, in contrast to [START_REF] Braine | Representation of depth by children: Spatial strategies and lateral biases[END_REF]. In the present study, the right-handers frequently adopted the BAC strategy to transcribe the 3D model.

Meanwhile, left-handers adopted two different strategies (BCA and ABC). The more lateralized left-handers, who drew asymmetrical drawing (i.e., cluster 5), favoured a BCA strategy.

Interestingly, the less lateralized left-handers, who drew symmetrical drawings with a balanced density and complementarity (i.e., cluster 4), favoured the best strategy to account for the spatial relationships between the 3 planes, which is the ABC order. Indeed, the graphical representation of perspective and depth requires drawing the closest elements first to account for interpositionthe reproduction of objects partially hidden by others in front of them. Since left-handers exhibit a more diffuse inter-hemispheric connection and a lesser lateralization, they will present greater global processing and spatial scanning that may lead to a balanced symmetrical drawing, and a more flexible transcription strategy conform to the 3D model: The near element is drawn first, followed by the farther elements [START_REF] Braine | Representation of depth by children: Spatial strategies and lateral biases[END_REF]. Thus, left-handers appear more capable, depending on the task, of drawing the various elements in the appropriate order with a view to their correct representation as opposed to focusing on the main theme. This leads them to start their drawing with an accessory and not the main element. However, [START_REF] Vaid | Script directionality affects depiction of depth in representational drawings[END_REF] found a strong influence of script directionality on spatial strategies for older participants. Adults with a script directionality from left-to-right represented "near objects" on the left and "far objects" on the upper right hemispace, contrary to adults with a right-to-left directionality. We argue that a prolonged exposure to a specific reading and writing orientation is needed to observe any effect of script directionality on spatial biases in visual attention and depiction tasks [START_REF] Fagard | The effects of reading-writing direction on the asymmetry of space perception and directional tendencies: A comparison between French and Tunisian children[END_REF][START_REF] Faghihi | Spatial bias in figure placement in representational drawing: Associations with handedness and script directionality[END_REF].

Limitations and perspectives

The complexity and diversity of the collected results invite us to consider some future improvements to our experiment. Firstly, it is necessary to confirm our results through a new study with a larger sample size. Such a study would allow us to include the rare mixed-handed children. Secondly, we should consider assessing handedness along a continuum based on the manual performance, and not limit our assessments to manual preference as this can be a better indicator for handedness [START_REF] Bryden | A performance measure of the degree of hand preference[END_REF][START_REF] Nicholls | The relationship between hand preference, hand performance, and general cognitive ability[END_REF]. This measure will allow us to assess the degree of handedness as well as the direction. Thirdly, we must be cautious in our interpretations since our results supporting the laterality account are based on inductive inferences from a behavioural task. Brain imaging is needed to complement the laterality patterns found in the present behavioural study with cerebral activity measurement. Furthermore, we did not find any specific interpretation for our cluster 3. This cluster is constituted of 7 children with no unique drawing pattern (see Table VII in Appendix 7). They may be an indicator that there were other factors/variables that influenced the children's graphical productions that were not captured by our test. Thus, we intend to replicate this study by assessing children's manual performance and the hemispherical lateralization (i.e., language dominance, type of information processing and the interhemispheric connection). We could also consider using line bisection and aesthetic preference tasks alongside our graphical task. They would allow us to collect more data on the children's cognitive development in parallel with data on the development of the sensorimotor system. Furthermore, our assessments were conducted using a manual scoring sheet. Electronic graphical tablets would enable more precise assessment. Finally, a longitudinal study would allow us to follow the evolution of the graphical productions developed within each specific cluster. For example, by comparing the results obtained before and after the acquisition of literacy we would be investigating the social and cultural influence on our task.

Conclusion

This research proposed a 3D/2D task capable of distinguishing specific patterns of drawing at a young age, improving our understanding of the neurotypical development of laterality. Indeed, the present 3D/2D depiction task has successfully identified graphical patterns according to handedness and sex and provided us with a rich dataset for examining the behavioural manifestation of hemispherical lateralisation. It was more sensitive than the Alter's directionality test for understanding the spatial biases resulting from handedness and HFS among young children. This is in line with previous findings that landscape stimuli could be more influenced by HFS than static or moving objects. Furthermore, this 3D/2D task appears promising to explore specific laterality patterns identifiable in participants with atypical development, particularly those with neurodevelopmental disorders. Such studies could bring up opportunities for an early detection of atypical laterality patterns, underpinned by spatial difficulties. These are found in many neurodevelopmental and learning disorders such as dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism spectrum disorder [START_REF] Penolazzi | Altered hemispheric asymmetry during word processing in dyslexic children: an event-related potential study[END_REF][START_REF] Postema | The genetics of situs inversus without primary ciliary dyskinesia[END_REF][START_REF] Querne | Dysfunction of the attentional brain network in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A fMRI study[END_REF]Xu et al., 2015) as well as in certain psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia [START_REF] Wiberg | Handedness, language areas and neuropsychiatric diseases: Insights from brain imaging and genetics[END_REF].

Scoring manual -3D-2D transcription task

The observation grid of the test makes it possible to transcribe the progress of the child's graphics on one hand for all the 3 constitutive planes of the 3D model and then for the details of each plan (A, B, C).

On another scoring sheet, the elements present or absent in the 2D representation of the 3D model, as well as the chronology of the drawn elements, are reported for synthesis.

During the assessment, two information must be included:

1. The initial point of origin of the drawing: the point from which the child begins his drawing. It can be located either on the left, in the centre, or on the right. Thus, immediately after the beginning of the child's drawing, the origin point is indicated with a big dot (see the blue dot on Example 1).

2. The progression axis: characterized by the orientation of the stroke, the position of a structure (e.g., square) from its point of origin or the direction of drawing to represent the successive elements of series (e.g. windows, bushes, trees). Important: the strokes orientation must be marked by arrows in complementarity with the origin points for every structure and substructure of the drawing (e.g., respectively for the global structure of the house and its details such as windows) and their chronological order must be numbered. Thus, each structure and substructure will be referenced with a number allowing to precisely transcribe the progression of the drawing from the main origin point to the end of the task (see below the example 1 of scoring sheet).

Example 1:

The scoring sheet gives already information on the: Point of origin, progression axis and placement order As for the example 1:

-The point of origin is on the left (big dot on the left side of the first stroke).

-Progression axis: Dominance for the Left to Right (LR) orientation (13 LR) -The depiction order of the three planes (A, B and C) can be scored following the numbering of drawn elements according to each plane. We observe in example 1 that the child began to draw the house (plane B). After finishing the sixth stroke (stroke

  about here ________________________________ The three planes of the model are consisted of: the foreground (plane A), representing a long horizontal river surrounded by lichens; the middle ground (plane B), representing a symmetrical house with three windows; the background (plane C), representing three trees on either side of the house).

Appendix 1 )

 1 : "Well, I see that you draw very well. I really like your drawings. Now look, I am going to show you something and then I would like you to draw it for me. Be careful, look carefully as you are going to make a drawing that looks as close as possible to the model you are going to see". Showing the model: "Do you see the house and the landscape? So, tell me what you see".

FigureFigure 2 .

 2 Figure 1a. 3D model

Figure 3 .Figure 5 .Figure 6 .Figure 7 .

 3567 Figure 3. Percentage of the explained variance of the first 10 dimensions

Figure

  Figure II. Dendrogram representing the optimal number of clusters

  about here ________________________________ Neither sex nor handedness predicted the following variables: directionality, order of placement, representation, and partial arrangement (see TableVIin Appendix 6 for the Goodness of fit of the GLM of all the variables).

Table 1 .

 1 Distribution of our nominal variables

	1196
		Variables		Categories n (%)	Variables	Categories	n (%)
				Left	17 (25.8%)
		Sex	Boys	Right	17 (25.8%)
		&
		Handedness	Girls	Left	14 (21.2%)
				Right	18 (27.3%)
		Alter's directionality	Balanced 9 (13.60%) Left 24 (36.40%) Right 33 (50.00%)	Progression Axe	Left to Right 35 (53.00%) Right to Left 24 (36.40%) Vertical 7 (10.60%)
				Total	66 (100%)		Total	66 (100%)
				Balanced 41 (62.10%)		Balanced	29 (43.94%)
		Complementarity	Left Right	14 (21.20%) 10 (15.20%)	Density	Left Right	22 (33.33%) 15 (22.73%)
				NA	1 (1.50%)
				Total	66 (100%)		Total	66 (100%)
				ABC	13 (19.70%)		Centre	4 (6.06%)
		Placement order	BAC BCA	25 (37.90%) Origin point 22 (33.30%)	Left Right	37 (56.06%) 25 (37.88%)
				Other	6 (9.10%)
				Total	66 (100%)		Total	66 (100%)
				Correct	25 (37.90%)		A (Left)	10 (15.20%)
		Representation		Incorrect	40 (60.60%)	Spatial	B (Balanced) 39 (59.10%)
				NA	1 (1.50%)	arrangement	C (Right)	16 (24.20%)
							NA	1 (1.50%)
				Total	66 (100%)		Total	66 (100%)
	1197	Note. n(%): Sample Size.
	1198

Table I .

 I Eigen values and the variance percentage of the 18 dimensions

	1231
	Dimensions Eigen value	Variance % Cumulative
				variance %
	1	0.29	16.38	16.38
	2	0.24	13.32	29.70
	3	0.19	10.46	40.16
	4	0.14	7.80	47.96
	5	0.13	7.42	55.38
	6	0.12	6.79	62.17
	7	0.10	5.67	67.84
	8	0.01	5.47	73.31
	9	0.09	4.88	78.19
	10	0.08	4.43	82.62
	11	0.07	3.85	86.47
	12	0.06	3.45	89.92
	13	0.05	2.88	92.80
	14	0.04	2.39	95.19
	15	0.03	1.92	97.11
	16	0.03	1.52	98.63
	17	0.02	1.26	99.89

Table V .

 V Results for all the significant categories characterizing each cluster

	Complementarity: Balanced	39.02	100.00	64.06	3.71	<.001
	Directionality: Right	41.94	81.25	48.44	2.98	<.01
	Point of origin: Left	38.89	87.50	56.25	2.91	<.01
	Representation: Correct	44.00	68.75	39.06	2.69	<.01
			Cluster 3
		Cla/Mod Mod/Cla	Global	v.test p
	Spatial arrangement: A	60.00	85.71	15.63	4.28	<.001
	Complementarity: Right	60.00	85.71	15.63	4.28	<.001
	Order of placement: Other	50.00	42.86	9.38	2.43	<.05
	Directionality: Right	19.35	85.71	48.44	1.98	<.05
			Cluster 4
		Cla/Mod Mod/Cla	Global	v.test p
	Handedness: Left	58.62	94.44	45.31	5.02	<.001
	Density: Balanced	50.00	Cluster 1 77.78	43.75	3.35	<.001
	Complementarity: Balanced Progression axes: Other Progression axes: Left to right Progression axes: Right to left Order of placement: BAC Point of origin: Right Handedness: Right Spatial arrangement: B Spatial arrangement: C Order placement: ABC Directionality: Left Point of origin: Left	Cla/Mod Mod/Cla Global 41.47 94.44 64.06 85.71 33.33 10.94 41.18 100.00 53.13 52.17 66.67 35.94 50.00 85.71 37.50 50.00 66.67 37.50 40.00 100.00 54.69 39.47 83.33 59.38 56.25 64.29 25.00 53.85 38.89 20.31 41.67 71.43 37.50 36.11 92.86 56.25 Cluster 5	v.test 3.27 3.18 4.18 3.06 4.06 2.89 4.06 2.42 3.49 2.13 2.82 3.17	<.01 p <.001 <.001 <.01 <.01 <.01 <.001 <.05 <.001 <.05 <.01 <.01
	Representation: Incorrect	33.33 Cla/Mod Mod/Cla 92.86	60.94 Global	<.01 v.test p 2.82
	Complementarity: Left Progression axes: Right to left Density: Left Complementarity: Left Handedness: Left Order of placement: BCA Handedness: Right Progression axes: Left to right Spatial arrangement: C Point of origin: Centre	46.15 39.13 38.10 53.85 31.03 Cla/Mod Mod/Cla Global 42.86 20.31 100 35.94 57.14 32.81 77.78 20.31 100.00 45.31 Cluster 2 33.33 77.78 32.81 45.71 100.00 54.69 47.06 100.00 53.12 37.50 66.67 25.00 75.00 33.33 6.25	4.18 2.14 3.93 2.06 3.57 v.test 2.84 4.46 2.75 4.59 2.67	<.05 <.05 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.01 <.01 p <.001 <.001 <.01
	Spatial arrangement: B	42.11	100.00	59.38	4.08	<.001

Note. Cla/Mod: % of individuals belonging to the cluster Global: % of the individual among our sample

Table VI .

 VI Goodness of fit of the General Linear Models

	1252	handedness			129.85	0.46	.01	.80
		Variable sex	n	df	AIC 126.23	χ 2 4.14	Model R 2 p .03 .13
		Complementarity handedness*sex	65	2	133.56	0.25	.04	.88
		handedness	125.11 Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 1.47	.01	.48
		sex			116.73	9.55*	.08	.01
		handedness*sex			122.75	1.02	.10	.60
		Density	66	2
		handedness			138.90	9.78*	.07	.01
		sex			147.90	0.73	.01	.70
		handedness*sex			145.86	0.36	.08	.83
		Directionality	66	2
		handedness			138.02	0.10	.01	.95
		sex			135.11	3.60	.02	.16
		handedness*sex			138.56	4.30	.06	.12
		Order of placement 66	3
		handedness			176.01	3.89	.02	.27
		sex			177.18	3.09	.02	.38
		handedness*sex			181.07	4.43	.06	.22
		Point of origin	66	2
		handedness			92.91	28.40*** .25	<.001
		sex			119.77	0.23	.02	.90
		handedness*sex			92.36	6.78*	.33	.03
		Progression axes	66	2
		handedness			55.94	78.68*** .62	<.001
		sex			132.09	2.59	.01	.27
		handedness*sex			61.32	0.001	.64	.99
		Representation	65	1
		handedness			90.60	0.04	.00	.83
		sex			90.60	0.03	.00	.86
		handedness*sex			94.31	0.23	.01	.63

Acknowledgments

The present work was financially supported by the Grand-Est Region (Alsace, France) via the LATERALCOG project. The authors wish to gratefully thank Elodie Ernst and Chloé Neumann for their help in collecting the data, and Laurence de Lussy-Kubisa for his assistance. We would like also to thank Dr. Nic Badcock and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study and the scoring walkthrough of the 3D/2D task are openly available in OSF at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2TQXH.

Declaration of interest statement

None of the authors has a financial or other conflict of interest.

Neuroscience, 15(3), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3679 Xu, M., Yang, J., Siok, W. T., & Tan, L. H. (2015). Atypical lateralization of phonological working memory in developmental dyslexia. Journal of Neurolinguistics,33,[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.07.004 52 end, the child drawn the river (plane A). Therefore, the placement order was BCA.

After this step, the scoring sheet should be put aside. To continue the scoring procedure, we analyse the children's drawing to determine after completion the quality of the 2D representation (correct or not), the density of graphic content, the graphic complement or complementarity and the spatial arrangement (or directionality).

Representation:

A correct representation is identified by the offset between each of the 3 levels along a vertical axis characterizing a good 2D transcription of front-behind type of relationship between each of the three 3D planes: foreground (A), main plan (B) and background (C). A so-called "correct" representation will show a base shift of each of the 3 planes following a vertical axis, reflecting this way the 3D relation "front-behind" by a 2D relation "belowabove" (see example 2). Thus, a drawing where the river is depicted on the bottom, the house in the middle and the trees on both upper sides of the house was considered as a correct representation. Other representations were therefore considered incorrect (see example 3).

Example 2: Correct representations. This characterizes the orientation of the drawing (directionality) based on all the constitutive elements.

-Category A is defined as when the river is depicted on the left side of the house and/or the trees are on the right side, giving a leftward orientation.

-Category B is defined as a symmetrical drawing where the house and river are in the middle of the picture and the trees are present on both sides of the house.

-Category C is defined as when the river is depicted on the right side of the house and/or the trees are on the left side, giving a rightward orientation.