Effects of Sensory Integration Therapy on Sensory Integration and Motor Development in Preschool-Age Children With Developmental Delays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of combining vestibular-proprioceptive activities, bilateral coordination exercises, and visual perception training on sensory integration function and motor development in preschool-age children with developmental delay. This study is a case report of two male children with developmental delay, and was conducted over 16 sessions. In the initial evaluation and re-evaluation, the patients underwent a sensory profile, a motor fitness test (Bruininks-Oseretsky test of Motor Proficiency-2), and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Both sensory integration function and motor development were evaluated. During the intervention period, vestibular-proprioceptive activities were alternately combined with bilateral coordination exercises or visual perception training and performed for 40 minutes each. The differences between the initial evaluation and re-evaluation results of each patient were analyzed. When sensory integration function and motor development results before and after the intervention were compared, the first patient demonstrated improvement in seven areas and the second in four areas in the sensory profile. In the exercise fitness test, both patients demonstrated improved scores in all areas. Thus, it was confirmed that vestibular-proprioceptive activities, when combined with bilateral coordination exercise and visual perception training, had a positive effect on sensory integration function and motor development for preschool-age children with developmental delay.
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".