Motor learning in children with spina bifida: Dissociation between performance level and acquisition rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cerebellum is part of a neural circuit involved in procedural motor learning. We examined how congenital cerebellar malformations affect mirror drawing performance, a procedural learning task that involves learning to trace the outline of a star while looking at the reflection of the star in a mirror. Participants were 88 children with spina bifida myelomeningocele, a neural tube defect that results in lesions of the spinal cord, dysmorphology of the cerebellum, and requires shunt treatment for hydrocephalus, and 35 typically developing controls. Participants completed 10 trials in the morning and 10 trials following a 3-hr delay. Although children with spina bifida myelomeningocele were initially slower at tracing and made more errors than controls, all participants improved their performance of the task, as demonstrated by increased speed and accuracy across trials. Moreover, degree of cerebellar dysmorphology was not correlated with level of performance, rate of acquisition, or retention of mirror drawing. The results suggest that congenital cerebellar dysmorphology in spina bifida does not impair motor skill learning as measured by acquisition and retention of the mirror drawing task.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".