MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2204942787 · doi:10.1109/icvr.2015.7358617

The role of feedback on cognitive motor learning in children with cerebral palsy: A protocol

2015· article· en· W2204942787 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime T. Robert, Mindy F. Levin, Rhona Guberek, Krithika Sambasivan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyMotor learningPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMotor skillVirtual realityTask (project management)Protocol (science)Computer scienceCognitionPsychologyPsychological interventionVirtual machineIntervention (counseling)Upper limbHuman–computer interactionMedicineDevelopmental psychologyEngineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence of provision of extrinsic feedback for improvement and retention of upper limb kinematics in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is scarce, especially following training interventions using virtual environments. Benefits of using a virtual environment can range from increasing the participant's motivation to the ease of adapting extrinsic feedback for optimizing motor learning. In the proposed research, children with CP will be randomly allocated to one of three groups: no additional feedback, continuous feedback and faded feedback. For all groups, upper-limb motor training will be done in a virtual environment using the Jintronix virtual reality system. Motor improvements will be evaluated after an 8 hour training intervention and motor learning will be evaluated after one month. Transfer of motor gains to performance of a similar upper-limb task will also be used to assess learning. Findings from this research will provide crucial information on which frequency of feedback should be used to optimize motor learning and upper-limb rehabilitation in children with CP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders→French-language works237,207→