The Application of Motor Learning Strategies Within Functionally Based Interventions for Children with Neuromotor Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: To identify and describe the application of 3 motor learning strategies (verbal instructions, practice, and verbal feedback) within 4 intervention approaches (cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance, neuromotor task training, family-centered functional therapy, and activity-focused motor interventions). Methods: A scoping review of the literature was conducted. Two themes characterizing the application of motor learning strategies within the approaches are identified and described. Results: Application of a motor learning strategy can be a defining component of the intervention or a means of enhancing generalization and transfer of learning beyond the intervention. Often, insufficient information limits full understanding of strategy application within the approach. Conclusions: A greater understanding of the application, and perceived nonapplication, of motor learning strategies within intervention approaches has important clinical and research implications. The authors examined the literature on 4 motor learning approaches to determine the extent to which each approach incorporated specific motor-learning strategies. Their review suggests the need for additional research on the use of motor-learning strategies with children.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".