Auditory–Perceptual and Auditory–Motor Timing Abilities in Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) remains largely underdiagnosed and masked by other co-occurring conditions. The aim of this study was to (1) provide the first review of research regarding auditory-motor timing and synchronization abilities in children with DCD and (2) examine whether reduced motor performance may be associated with difficulties in auditory perceptual timing. The scoping review was carried out across five major databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus) in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers against the inclusion criteria, without publication date restrictions. From an initial return of 1673 records, 16 articles were included in the final review and synthesized based on the timing modality studied (i.e., auditory-perceptual, motor, or auditory-motor). Results suggest that children with DCD have difficulties with rhythmic movements both with and without external auditory cues and further indicate that variability in and slowness of motor response are key characteristics of DCD, regardless of the experimental task. Importantly, our review highlights a significant gap in the literature regarding auditory perceptual abilities in DCD. In addition to testing auditory perception, future studies should compare the performance of children with DCD on paced and unpaced tasks to determine whether auditory stimuli contribute to a more or less stable performance. This knowledge may inform future therapeutic interventions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".