MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980615656 · doi:10.1002/dev.21931

Concurrent maturation of visuomotor skills and motion perception in typically‐developing children and adolescents

2019· article· en· W2980615656 on OpenAlexafffund
Ewa Niechwiej‐Szwedo, Kimberly Meier, Lisa Christian, Mina Nouredanesh, James Tung, Pamela J. Bryden, Deborah Giaschi

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyPerceptionMotor skillMotion (physics)Task (project management)Typically developingAssociation (psychology)GRASPDevelopmental psychologyVisual perceptionMotion perceptionTime perceptionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceComputer scienceComputer visionAutism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perceptual and visuomotor skills undergo considerable development from early childhood into adolescence; however, the concurrent maturation of these skills has not yet been examined. This study assessed visuomotor function and motion perception in a cross-section of 226 typically-developing children between 4 and 16 years of age. Participants were tested on three tasks hypothesized to engage the dorsal visual stream: threading a bead on a needle, marking dots using a pen, and discriminating form defined by motion contrast. Mature performance was reached between 8 and 12 years, with youngest maturation for kinematic measures for a reach-to-grasp task, and oldest maturation for a precision tapping task. Performance on the motion perception task shared no association with motor skills after controlling for age.

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)0.002
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207