Visuo-motor coordination in 8-year-old children born pre-term before and after 28 weeks of gestation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study compared the visuo-motor abilities between pre-term and full-term children.Methods: Twenty-three 8-year-old children participated, five being born under 28 weeks gestational age (wGA) referred to as Preterms1 (mean = 8 years 5 months [SD 0.3]), nine Preterms2 of 28–35 wGA (mean = 7 years 9 months [SD 0.7]) and nine typically developing full-term controls (mean = 8 years 6 months [SD 0.7]). All children were studied in an interhemispheric transfer time and in a visuo-manual pointing-task to test motor programming time in three conditions: unimanual pointing (dominant, non-dominant hands), mirror bimanual pointing (same direction for both hands) and opposite bimanual pointing.Results: Significant differences were detected between Preterms 1 and 2, the latter being similar to controls. Preterms1 presented increases in interhemispheric time, suggesting an alteration in the transcallosal pathways. Programming time was significantly lengthened (p < 0.01) for dominant hand unilateral pointing and opposite bilateral pointing and it was the shortest for mirror pointing.Conclusions: A faulty programming of visuo-manual tasks is suspected in Preterms1 with potential difficulty inhibiting the non-dominant limb mirror movement. This may result from an impaired interhemispheric inhibition owing to potential corpus callosum thinning. Such measures may be used to help follow-up subtle changes in fine motor control and detect pre-terms at risk of developing long-term deficits.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".