MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913459058 · doi:10.1080/21622965.2018.1550402

Kinematic analysis of fast pen strokes in children with ADHD

2019· article· en· W2913459058 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Laniel, Nadir Faci, Réjean Plamondon, Miriam H. Beauchamp, Bruno Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Neuropsychology Child · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHandwritingKinematicsPsychologyContext (archaeology)Motor skillStroke (engine)Physical medicine and rehabilitationAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderDevelopmental psychologyMotor controlComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineNeuroscienceClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we aimed to determine whether a new measure of fine motor skills, the Pen Stroke Test (PST), can discriminate between children with and without attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Twelve children with ADHD and 12 controls age 8–11 were asked to produce handwriting strokes on a digitizer. The sigma-lognormal model derived from the Kinematic Theory of rapid human movements was used to analyze the strokes. Standard measurements of fine motor skills and handwriting were also obtained. Children with ADHD demonstrated poorer motor planning (t0, D) and execution (nbLog) and greater variability in motor control (SNR/nbLog) than did controls. Parameters extracted from the PST were significantly correlated with performance on other motor and handwriting measures. This study provides preliminary evidence that the PST may be useful as a tool for rapidly detecting motor skill problems in the context of ADHD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Neuropsychology ChildSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207