t in terms of favoring males, with tasks involving above eye level stimuli, and tactile stimuli. Further research may shed more light onto these intriguing findings. Past research which found far peripersonal biases in the below eye level visual modes (Jeerkathil et al., 1994, and Kageyama et al., 1994) was not supported by the current study. Nor were the research findings of Geldmacher et al. (1994) supported by the current study. They found that below eye level tactile stimuli received a near peripersonal attentional bias. Although there were apparent trends in the directions of the above findings, none were calculated to be statistically significant. Some of the plethora of possible reasons for these findings include: no determination of normal vision (corrected if necessary), no determination of neurological deficits, no account of brain injury or trauma history by the researcher. Further, since the sample size was so small, perhaps there was not enough data to display the true distribution of results expected from a study of this sort. In order to get a fuller picture of the present data, the researcher could have implemented a calculation of the mean LBE per subject per modal trial. That is, I should have calculated the mean LBEs per subject in the visual above trials, the visual below trials, the tactile above trials, and the tactile below trials. This would allow a more precise comparison of the data sets in question. Regardless the outcomes or possible trends in the current study, the debate as to whether men are actually superior to women in visuo-spatial dexterity, will continue to raise questions and spur contemporary research. The findings of yesteryear are beginning to fade and lose their lustrous influence on society. More and more, women are taking their place in a world once dominated by men. Perhaps the slim differences between the sexes are shrug issues, useful only as interesting topics of debate, but o...
