Impacts of Developmental Coordination Disorder on Postural Control Mechanisms in Children and Early Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have demonstrated balance impairments in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD). However, a recent meta-analysis reports that none of the existing studies investigated the entire construct of balance across the same postural task. It is unclear whether anticipatory postural adjustments before voluntary unperturbed leaning tasks are altered in DCD. Anticipatory postural adjustment’s impact on postural control and limits of stability as well as the contribution of proprioception in these mechanisms are also unknown. This study compared the center of pressure displacements of participants with DCD ( n = 30) to typically developing participants ( n = 20) (9–12 years old). Standing on an AMTI force plate, participants were asked to lean as far as possible forward, backward, rightward, and leftward in both natural and with eyes closed + foam conditions (eight separated trials). The statistical analysis revealed that the DCD group had larger anticipatory postural adjustments, maximal center of pressure excursion, and greater postural instabilities than the control group. The proprioceptive condition does not systematically influence postural performance in DCD. These deficits are, however, increased in mediolateral directions. These impairments could interfere with children’s performance during daily and physical activities and even negatively impact social inclusion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".