The Importance of Motor Activity in Sensorimotor Development: A Perspective from Children with Physical Handicaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assumption that motor activity and physical manipulation play a central role in early development is evaluated in light of a number of studies reporting that at least some severely physically handicapped children seem to attain age-appropriate or slightly delayed levels of cognitive development. In addition, we examine the importance of motor activity in strong and weak formulations of Piagetian theory, as well as in neo-Piagetian and perceptual analytic [Mandler, 1988] theories. General methodological difficulties affecting interpretation of many studies with the physically handicapped are highlighted. The sufficiency of alternative pathways to development, using available modalities for sensory input and action, is discussed, as well as the possibility of using other people and objects instrumentally to act on the environment in the testing of hypotheses. We conclude that motor activity may be the modal means by which cognitive development normally proceeds, but that it is not a necessary contributor. This view is seen as most consistent with the perceptual analytic and neo-Piagetian models, although neither is specific enough on the issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".