Handwriting Delay in Dyslexia: Children at the End of Primary School Still Make Numerous Short Pauses When Producing Letters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental dyslexia is defined as a specific reading disorder but is also thought to be underpinned by a deficit in motor skills that may well affect handwriting performance. However, the results of studies addressing this issue are not consistent. The present study was, therefore, designed to better understand the functioning of handwriting in children with dyslexia, by conducting an analysis of the legibility and fluency of handwritten letters, supplemented by an assessment of motor skills. The performances of 15 children with dyslexia ( M age = 11.4 years) were compared with those of two groups of typically developing children, one matched for chronological age, the other for orthographic level ( M age = 8.7 years) on two handwriting measures (production of the letters of the alphabet and the child’s first name and surname). Results revealed a delay in motor skills, as well as in letter legibility, letter production duration, and the number of short pauses (i.e., lasting between 20 and 199 ms) made during letter production, in the children with dyslexia, with strong negative correlations between motor skills and the number of short pauses. Results are discussed in the context of handwriting control development in children, and perspectives are set out for practitioners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".