Age effects on sensory-processing abilities and their impact on handwriting
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
BACKGROUND: Sensory-processing abilities are known to deteriorate in the elderly. As a result, daily activities such as handwriting may be impaired. Yet, knowledge about sensory-processing involvement in handwriting characteristics among older persons is limited. PURPOSE: To examine how age influences sensory-processing abilities and the impact on handwriting as a daily performance. METHOD: The study participants were 118 healthy, independently functioning adults divided into four age groups: 31-45, 46-60, 61-75 and 76+ years. All participants completed the Adolescent/ Adult Sensory Profile (AASP). Handwriting process was documented using the Computerized Handwriting Penmanship Evaluation Tool (ComPET). FINDINGS: Age significantly affects sensory processing and handwriting pressure as well as temporal and spatial measures. Both handwriting time and spatial organization of the written product were predicted by sensory seeking. When examining age contribution to the prediction of handwriting by sensory processing, sensory seeking showed a tendency for predicting handwriting pressure (p = .06), while sensory sensitivity significantly predicted handwriting velocity. IMPLICATIONS: Age appears to influence sensory-processing abilities and affect daily performance tasks, such as handwriting, for which sensitivity and seeking for sensations are essential. Awareness of clinicians to sensory-processing deficits among older adults and examining their impact on broader daily activities are essential to improve daily performance and quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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