Unimanual and bimanual motor performance in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) provide evidence for underlying motor control deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of our understanding of motor control deficits in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) comes from upper limb assessments focusing on the dominant limb. Here, using two robotic behavioural tasks, we investigated motor control in both the dominant and non-dominant limbs of children with DCD. Twenty-six children with diagnosed DCD (20 males; mean age 10.6 years ± 1.3 years) and 155 controls were included in this cross-sectional study. Participants completed a visually guided reaching task with their dominant and non-dominant limbs and a bimanual object hitting task. Motor performance was quantified across nine parameters. We determined the number of children with DCD who fell outside of the typical performance range of the controls on these parameters and compared the DCD and control groups using ANCOVAs, accounting for age. Children with DCD demonstrated impairments in six out of nine parameters; deficits were more commonly noted in the non-dominant limb. Interestingly, when looking at individual performance, several children with DCD performed in the range of controls. These findings indicate that children with DCD display deficits in motor control in both the dominant and non-dominant limb and highlight the importance of including detailed assessments of both limbs when investigating children with DCD. They also demonstrate the variability in motor control performance evidenced by children with DCD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".