Variable Practice May Enhance Ball Catching Skills in Some but Not All Children With DCD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with DCD exhibit many motor issues including ball catching, which have not been addressed clinically. The purpose of this study was to examine if variable practice can improve one-handed catching performance of five boys with DCD with severe (M = 11.1 years, SD = .7) and moderate movement problems (M = 11. 7 years, SD = .9). Both groups attended 12 sessions, with 8 blocks of 10 attempts, across four different ball velocities. Children with moderate issues caught more balls at post- and transfer test, as compared to pre-test. Kinematic profiles showed that both groups exhibited stable configuration of the catching arm; however, only children with moderate issues increased (peak) velocity, degree of spatial adaptations, and extended the pre-programmed ballistic phase of the action. Thus, variable practice appeared to be effective for children with moderate issues but not those with severe problems. In line with VPH hypothesis, these improvements were due to strengthening of the schema responsible for spatial and temporal adaptations of the end effector.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".