Mechanisms That Underlie Coordination in Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors examined potential mechanisms underlying motor coordination in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Because children with DCD experience difficulty processing visual, auditory, and vibrotactile information, the authors explored patterns of choice reaction time (RT) in young (6-7 years) and older (9-10 years) children with and without DCD by using a compatibility-incompatibility paradigm and different sensory modalities. Young children responded more slowly than older children to visual, auditory, and vibrotactile stimuli. Children with DCD took longer than typical children to process visual and vibrotactile stimuli under more complex stimulus-response mappings. Young children with DCD responded more slowly than typical children to visual and vibrotactile information under incompatible conditions. Children with DCD responded faster than unaffected children to auditory stimuli. The results suggest that there is a developmental nature in the processing of visual and auditory input and imply that the vibrotactile sensory modality may be key to the motor coordination difficulties of children with DCD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it