Effects of Variable Practice on Kinematics and Accuracy of Throwing in Boys with Developmental Coordination Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) cannot throw, which often prevents them from taking part in age-appropriate activities. The present research examined the degree to which variable practice, embedded in the Motor Schema Theory (Schmidt, 1975), would positively affect movement effectiveness, and coinciding accuracy, as well and parametrization of spatial and temporal aspects of control. Nine boys diagnosed with DCD (M = 10.7 years, SD = 1.0) participated in a pre-test, ten 30 minute training sessions, post-test, and a transfer test. Only pre- and post-tests involved kinematic data collection and measurement of accuracy. The variable practice involved throwing a tennis ball from a distance of 5 meters at 3 different targets (40 cm vs 35 cm vs 25 cm), positioned in three different locations. The transfer test was presented in a new environment with novel conditions. Results reveled improvement in movement effectiveness, at the group level, however when individual data was examined not all participants benefited to the same degree, especially when the transfer test was considered. All participants improved in regards to their accuracy. The changes in the outcome coincided with changes in spatial parametrization at the elbow, but not the shoulder. Also, higher velocity of the ball and angular velocity at the elbow were evident. From the clinical standpoint, the present study highlighted the importance of introducing context relevant variability in the learning program, however the decline in performance in the transfer test indicates that more research is warranted to understand the lasting effects on motor schema.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".