MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2742757698

A comparison of constrained and unconstrained reaching movements by people with and without autism spectrum disorders

2015· article· en· W2742757698 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ran Zheng, Steven Passmore, Cheryl M. Glazebrook

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)ProprioceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAutism spectrum disorderPsychologyAutismSagittal planeCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although not included in the definition of Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), motor performance differences are reported consistently. Specifically, individuals with ASD spend more time preparing movements. Currently there is a debate as to whether people with ASD require more time to execute reaching movements. The present study compared constrained and unconstrained reaching movements in order to determine if previous reports of a preference for proprioceptive feedback explains inconsistent movement time reports in the literature. Eleven ASD participants and 13 typically developing (TD) participants were recruited. All participants performed three types of reaching movements in the sagittal plane: 1) sliding along a track on a piece of Plexiglas (1D, constrained); 2) sliding along a smooth piece of Plexiglas (2D, constrained); and 3) aiming movements (3D, unconstrained). Movements were recorded using a 3D motion analysis system (3D Investigator, NDI) and muscle activity was recorded using surface electromyography (CED 1902 dual system amplifier). All dependent variables were submitted to a 2 Group (ASD, TD) by 3 Movement Type (1D, 2D, 3D) mixed analysis of variance. Results revealed a significant Group by Movement Type interaction for premotor reaction time, movement time, and time after peak velocity. The ASD group took longer to prepare and execute 3D (unconstrained) movements compared to the TD group. The current findings are consistent with previously reported behavioral and brain imaging research identifying altered brain connections in ASD participants indicative of a preference for haptic over visual feedback for movement control.Acknowledgments: Funding: Research Manitoba; The present research was also made possible by funding from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. The authors would like to thank Kelsey Brown and Brie Page for their help collecting data and all of the participants for their time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research→French-language works237,207→