Developing skilled motor performance: A systematic review of perceptual skill training in children and youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquiring perceptual motor skill capabilities is an important element of successful sport performance. Perceptual motor skills have shown to be trainable in an adult population; however, less is known about perceptual motor skill training at earlier, developmental stages of long term athlete development. The purpose of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the available evidence for the trainability of perceptual motor skills in children and youth. Original research articles were retrieved systematically through searching electronic databases (PubMed (OVID), PsychInfo (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO)) and articles examining perceptual motor training interventions in children and youth were included in the analysis. Twelve articles were identified, including 638 participants with an average age of 11 y. Primary outcome measures varied with an emphasis on the training of anticipatory skills, coincident anticipation time, simple reaction time, and choice reaction time. Findings showed that 10 out of the 12 investigations showed post-intervention improvements in the respective perceptual motor skill when compared to baseline. While there has been a limited number of studies examining perceptual motor skill training in children and youth cohorts to date, this systematic analysis suggests that perceptual motor skill training in childhood/youth may have benefits in sport development. Further research is warranted into examining perceptual motor skill development and training protocols in the context of long term athlete development in children and youth for optimizing sport performance.Acknowledgments: Funding is provided by a University of British Columbia Graduate Fellowship to the first author.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".