Sex-Dependent Individual Differences and the Correlational Relationship Between Proprioceptive and Verbal Tests

1. Gironell A., Liutsko L., Muinos R., Tous J.M. (2012). Differences based on fine motor behaviour in Parkinson's patients compared to an age matched control group in proprioceptive and visuo-proprioceptive test conditions. Anuario de Psicologia 42(2), 183-197.Search in Google Scholar

2. Liutsko L. (2014). Age and sex differences in proprioception (fine motor precision). Scholars' Press.Search in Google Scholar

3. Liutsko L., Tous J.M. (2014). Sex and cultural differences in proprioception based on fine motor performance. Perso- nality and Individual Differences 60(Supplement), S29. DOI: 10.1016/j paid. 2013.07.050.Search in Google Scholar

4. Mira E. (1923). Somatic reactions of mental work. Doctoral thesis. University of Barcelona, Barcelona, [in Spanish]Search in Google Scholar

5. Luria A.R. (1932). The nature of human conflicts. New York: Liveright Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

6. Mira E. (1958). Myokinetic psychodiagnosis (M. K. P.). New York: Logos.Search in Google Scholar

7. Tous Ral J.M., Muinos R., Tous Lopez O., Tous Rovirosa J.M. (2012). Proprioceptive diagnostics of temperament and character. Barcelona:UniversidaddeBarcelona. [inSpanish]Search in Google Scholar

8. Liutsko L. (2013). Proprioception as a basis for individual differences. Psycholog}' in Russia: State of the Art 6(3), 107-119. DOI: 10.11621/pir.2013.0310.10.11621/pir.2013.0310Search in Google Scholar

9. Tous J.M. (2008). Propioceptive diagnosis of temperament and characterDP-TC. Barcelona: Lab. Mira y Lopez, Depart- ment of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treat- ments, University of Barcelona. DP-TC software, [in Spanish]Search in Google Scholar

10. Liutsko L. (2012). The book review “Propioceptive diagnosis of temperament and character” (Tousetal. 2012). Anuario de Psicologia42(3), 421-422. [inSpanish]Search in Google Scholar

11. Tous J.M., Viade A., Muinos R. (2007). Structural validity of lineograms of myokinetic psychodiagnosis, revised and digitalised (PMK-RD). Psicothema 19(2), 350-356. [in Spa- nish]Search in Google Scholar

12. Muinos R. (2008). Miokinetic Psychodiagnosis: Development, description and confirmatory factorial analysis. Doctoral thesis, University of Barcelona, Barcelona. [inSpanish]Search in Google Scholar

13. Liutsko L., Muinos R., Tous J. (2012). Relationship between emotional intelligence based on the proprioceptive information and academic performance in secondary school pupils, l" National Congress of Emocional Intelligence, 8-10 November 2012 (p. 30), Barcelona.Search in Google Scholar

14. Liutsko L., Tous J.M. (2013). Quantitative and qualitative proprioceptive analysis of individual differences (description of Multiple sclerosis case study). Acta Neuropsychologica 11(3), 315-323. DOI: 10.5604/17307503.1084555.Search in Google Scholar

15. Liutsko L., Tous J.M., Muinos R. (2012). The effects of proprioception on memory: a study of proprioceptive errors and results from the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure in a healthy population. Acta Neuropsychologica 10(4), 489-497. DOI: 10.5604/1730 75 03/103 02 08. Search in Google Scholar

16. Liutsko L., Muinos R., Tous J.M. (2014). Age-related differences in proprioceptive and visuo-proprioceptive function in relation to fine motor behaviour. European Journal of Age- ing 11(3), 221-232. DOI: 10.1007/sl0433-013-0304-6.Search in Google Scholar

17. Berezin F.B., Varric L.D., Gorelova E.S. (1976). Psychophysiological studies of migrant and indigenous population of the Far Northeast. Human adaptation to the conditions of the North. Petrozavodsk, [in Russian]Search in Google Scholar

18. Miroshnikov M.P. (1963). Diagnostic meaning of psychomotricity and its study with use of miokinetic test. In L. Gissen (Ed.), Psycholog}'andpsychohigienein sport, C6., M. (pp. 15-32). [in Russian], 19. Ezhov S.N., Krivoshchekov S.G. (2004). Features of psycho- motor responses and interhemispheric relationships at various stages of adaptation to a new time zone. Human Physio- logy3Q(2), 172-175.10.1023/B:HUMP.0000021645.62494.0cSearch in Google Scholar

20. Draganova O.A. (2007). Psychopisiological markers of personal tolerance in adolescent period. Doctoral thesis, Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, St. Petersburg, [in Rus- sian]Search in Google Scholar

21. Tous J.M., Munos R., Liutsko L. (2014, in press). Personality differences of applicants for the gun license (proprioceptive and verbal tests). Los Anales de Psicologia 30(3). DOI: 10.6018/ analesps.30.3.171121.Search in Google Scholar

22. Hromov A.B. (2000). The five-factor personality questionnaire. Manual. Kurgan: Kurgan State University, [in Russian]Search in Google Scholar

23. Liutsko L., Tous-Ral J.M. (2012). Personality traits based on fine motor individual behaviour. In 4lh Russian Scientific Conference Psychology of Individuality, 22-24 November (p. 322), Moscow: Logos.Search in Google Scholar

24. Sigmundsson II., Ilaga M., Hopkins B. (2007). Sex differences in perception: exploring the integration of sensory information with respect to vision and proprioception. Sex Roles 57,181-186.10.1007/s11199-007-9228-ySearch in Google Scholar

25. Rosenbaum D.A. (2005). The Cinderella of psychology. The neglect of motor control in the science of mental life and behaviour. American Psychologist 60(4), 308-317. Search in Google Scholar