Motor imagery ability in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and evidence map
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cerebral palsy (CP) refers to a group of permanent movement and posture disorders. Motor imagery (MI) therapy is known to provide potential benefits, but data on MI ability in children and adolescents with CP is lacking. Objective: A systematic review was performed to explore MI abilities in children and adolescents with CP compared to typically developed (TD) subjects. Methods: We searched on PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), EBSCO, Google Scholar, and PEDro including observational studies. Methodological quality was assessed with the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and evidence map was created to synthesize the evidence qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: Seven cross-sectional studies were selected, which included 174 patients with CP and 321 TD subjects. Three studies explored explicit MI, two MI-execution synchrony, and four implicit MI domains. Methodological quality ranged from 6 to 8 stars. Moderate evidence supported the absence of differences in vividness between the groups. As there was only limited evidence, establishing a clear direction for the results was not possible, especially for the capacity to generate MI, mental chronometry features, and MI-execution synchrony domains. Moderate evidence supported a lower efficiency in cases for hand recognition, derived from a lower accuracy rate, while reaction time remained similar between the two groups. Moderate evidence indicated that patients with CP and TD controls showed similar features on whole-body recognition. Conclusion: Moderate evidence suggests that patients with CP present a reduced ability in hand recognition, which is not observed for whole-body recognition compared to healthy controls. Severe limitations concerning sample size calculations and validity of assessment tools clearly limits establishing a direction of results, especially for explicit MI and MI-Execution synchrony domains. Further research is needed to address these limitations to enhance our comprehension of MI abilities in children, which is crucial for prescribing suitable MI-based therapies in this child population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".