Cognitive CAMSA: an ecological proposal to integrate cognitive performance into motor competence assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To profile the participants using a system of self-organizing maps (SOM) based on their motor and cognitive performance during a dual-task version of the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (Cognitive CAMSA). Methods A total of 169 secondary school students (39.3% girls) volunteered to participate. The original CAMSA, cognitive CAMSA, the Corsi and Digit Span tests were used to assess (a) motor competence, (b) motor competence with cognitive load, and (c) cognitive performance, respectively. SOMs and the k -means clustering algorithm were used to establish the adolescents’ dual-task performance profiles. Results Including decision making based on verbal and visual cues in the original CAMSA significantly increased the participants’ total scores but also the time required to complete the test, while the skill score remained unchanged. However, not all the participants showed changes in their performance in the same direction during the cognitive CAMSA. Person-centered analyses by SOMs and k -means clustering identified six performance profiles with variations in the cognitive, motor skill, and time scores (H 5 = 146.15, H 5 = 102.68, and H 5 = 108.07, respectively; all p < 0.01). Conclusion The cognitive CAMSA was shown to be a feasible field-motor test for assessing motor competence with a cognitive load in an ecological setting. Some of the profiles identified in the SOM approach represented adolescents with similar motor and cognitive performance in dual-task or single-task contexts, although other participants obtained high motor competence in single and dual-tasking while their cognitive performance declined or rose more in dual-task than in single task situations. The cognitive CAMSA emerges as a tool of great potential, applicable in educational and sports environments, to know subjects’ characteristics and try to individualize the interventions accordingly with their dual-task profile.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".