Relationship between sensory processing patterns and gross motor function of children and adolescents with Down syndrome and typical development: a cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with Down syndrome (DS) may experience impairments in sensory and motor skills that can be interrelated. The purposes of this study were (i) to compare the sensory processing patterns and gross motor function between children and adolescents with DS and with typical development (TD) and (ii) to explore associations between these areas in both DS and TD groups. METHOD: This cross-sectional study involved a sample size of 25 participants with DS (mean age 10.24 ± 2.04 years) and 25 participants with TD (mean age 10.04 ± 2.82 years). The sensory processing patterns were assessed using the Sensory Profile Second Version questionnaire, and the gross motor function was measured with the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-88) dimensions (D) standing, and (E) walking, running, and jumping. Differences between groups were tested using the Mann-Whitney test, and the relationship between the variables was examined using Spearman's correlation tests, with a significance level set at 5%. RESULTS: Children with DS showed greater difficulties with sensory processing than TD children in Seeker (P < 0.001), Avoider (P < 0.001), Sensitivity (P < 0.001), Registration (P < 0.001), Auditory (P < 0.001), Touch (P = 0.001), Movements (P = 0.001), Oral (P = 0.028), Conduct (P = 0.005), Socioemotional (P < 0.001), and Attentional (P < 0.001) domains. Additionally, children with DS presented lower gross motor function than TD in GMFM-88, standing (P < 0.001) and walking, running, and jumping (P < 0.001). Correlations were found between greater difficulties with sensory processing in Touch and lower gross motor function in walking, running, and jumping for the DS group. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest there are more difficulties in sensory processing patterns and gross motor function in children with DS than in TD. Also, there is a single association between more difficulties in sensory processing and less well-developed motor function in the DS group. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment of all these aspects should be performed in children and adolescents with DS, along with the provision of relevant interventions addressing specific needs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".