Motion-based technology to support motor skills screening in developing children: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acquiring motor skills is fundamental for children's development since it is linked to cognitive development. However, access to early detection of motor development delays is limited. AIM: This review explores the use and potential of motion-based technology (MBT) as a complement to support and increase access to motor screening in developing children. METHODS: Six databases were searched following the PRISMA guidelines to search, select, and assess relevant works where MBT recognised the execution of children's motor skills. RESULTS: 164 studies were analysed to understand the type of MBT used, the motor skills detected, the purpose of using MBT and the age group targeted. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap in the literature aiming to integrate MBT in motor skills development screening and assessment processes. Depth sensors are the prevailing technology offering the largest detection range for children from age 2. Nonetheless, the motor skills detected by MBT represent about half of the motor skills usually observed to screen and assess motor development. Overall, research in this field is underexplored. The use of multimodal approaches, combining various motion-based sensors, may support professionals in the health domain and increase access to early detection programmes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".