The Effectiveness of Sensory Integration Interventions on Motor and Sensory Functions in Infants with Cortical Vision Impairment and Cerebral Palsy: A Single Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cortical vision impairment (CVI) and Cerebral Palsy (CP) lead to decrement in sensory and motor functions of infants. The current study examined the effectiveness of sensory integration interventions on sensory, motor, and oculomotor skills in infants with cortical vision impairment. Thirty-four infants with and CP aged 12−18 months were enrolled to the study. The infants were randomly divided into two groups as the control and intervention groups. The intervention group took sensory integration intervention 2 days a week for 8 weeks in addition to conventional physiotherapy 2 days a week for 8 weeks. The control group only received the conventional physiotherapy program 2 days a week for 8 weeks. The duration of the treatment sessions were 45 min for both interventions. Before and after the intervention, sensory processing functions were evaluated with the Test of Sensory Functions in Infants (TSFI), and motor functions were evaluated with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). There was a statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-test mean TSFI total and AIMS scores in the intervention group and control group (p < 0.001). The intervention group mean TSFI scores were more statistically significant than the those of the control group. Mean post-intervention AIMS scores did not differ between groups. Sensory integration intervention delivered with the conventional physiotherapy program was more effective than the conventional physiotherapy program in increasing sensory processing skills in one measure in infants with CVI and CP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".