Language Development: The Effect of Aquatic and On-Land Motor Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the current preliminary research was to examine the relationship between aquatic motor activities and language abilities. Our hypothesis suggests that changing the environment to water may improve motor and linguistic abilities. The study included 94 children between the ages of four and six. Thirty-one children who participated in aquatic motor activities were compared to 41 children who participated in on-land motor activities and to 21 children who participated in non-motor activities. Developmental-functionality tests, including gross and fine motor, time estimation and language tests, were used to diagnose participants’ abilities before and after six months of intervention. We found significant improvement in gross motor, fine motor and time estimation abilities for the aquatic motor activities group. Moreover, improvement in gross motor and time estimation abilities moderated the association between aquatic motor activities and children’s naming ability, suggesting the positive effect of aquatic motor activities on language abilities. Based on these novel findings, child-development professionals can have a better understanding of relation between language abilities and motor abilities, possibly leading to an improvement of intervention methods with early-childhood patients. Early childhood intervention could aid in reducing primary differences between children in motor abilities, and especially in motor-development disorders, which in turn are thought to lead to additional learning disabilities.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".