Discrepancy between Motor and Cognitive Control in Adults with Intellectual Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the relationship between motor and cognitive control in adults with intellectual disabilities (ID), focusing on two aspects, speed and accuracy. Method: Participants were 62 adults with ID aged 20 to 47 years. Their intelligence quotients (IQ) ranged from 13 to 61. Nine of the adults with ID had Down syndrome, and 8 of the adults had autism. We conducted three tasks: seal affixation task, tray-carrying task, and the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT). The seal affixation and tray-carrying tasks are motor tasks we devised that can separately measure the speed and accuracy of motor control. MFFT is a cognitive control task that can be used to evaluate cognitive styles, such as impulsive-reflective. Results: Adults with ID showed high motor accuracy and similar motor speed regardless of their MFFT performance. That is, discrepancies between motor and cognitive control existed in adults with ID. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that some types of motor control problem may become unclear with growth. A longitudinal investigation focused on the motor skill development of persons with ID is therefore necessary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".