Exploring Relations Between Gross Motor Skills, Attention, and Inhibition in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Scientific literature addressing the association between Gross Motor Skills (GMS), attention, and inhibition is scarce. Studying these relations helps better understand the interactions and their behavioral repercussions. The aim of this study is to search for relations between gross motor skills, attention, and inhibition. METHODS: GMS of adolescents (n=220, range=13-17; mean 15.0±1.4 yrs) were assessed using protocols from UQAC-UQAM research team. Measures included: Arm and Leg Limb Speed, Agility, Coordination, Balance and Simple Reaction Time. Attention and inhibition measurements were collected using a Continuous Performance Test (CPT) protocol. Reaction times, number of errors, types of errors and derived measures from the CPT were used. Statistical analysis includes Spearman correlation test and Kruskal Wallis ANOVA. Both parents and adolescents gave their written consents. RESULTS: Reaction Time was in relation with all agility measurements (Circle Run: r = .19, p < .01; Shuttle Run: r = .17, p = .01; Slalom Run: r = .17, p = .01), but also with Limb Speed measures (r = -.21, p < .01). Variability of Reaction Time was correlated with Agility (Circle Run test; r = .16, p < .05), (Slalom Run test; r = .15, p < .05), Limb Speed (r = .24, p < .01) and Balance (r = .15, p < .05). Girls showed more correlations between GMS and neuropsychological measures. CONCLUSIONS: Some neuropsychological measures obtained with CPT protocol were related to Limb Speed, Agility, Balance and Reaction Time in adolescents. This conclusion suggests that motor and psychomotor development may play a role in helping adolescents to better perform in attention and inhibition ability. The relations between functions were affected by gender. Future research is needed to better understand the role of motor and psychomotor development program on psychological measurements.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".