MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400896029 · doi:10.7860/jcdr/2024/70325.19682

Enhancing Visual Perception in Children Ages 4-12 Years: A Systematic Review of Technology-based Interventions

2024· review· en· W4400896029 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOccupational therapyPsychological interventionMedicinePerceptionIntervention (counseling)PsychologyMedical educationClinical psychologyPhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Visual perception plays a pivotal role in a child’s overall development and learning. Occupational therapists often employ interventions to support children in enhancing their visual perception skills, with technology-based approaches gaining prominence in recent years. This review intends to highlight the significance of visual perception interventions, especially those involving technology. Aim: To systematically synthesise the literature on the effectiveness of technology-based interventions on visual perception in children with disabilities aged 4-12 years. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of studies was conducted using electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest, and OTseeker). Additionally, studies were also considered through manual searches from printed journals (American Journal of Occupational Therapy, British Journal of Occupational Therapy, Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, and the Australian Journal of Occupational Therapy) to identify existing technology-based visual perception interventions in children aged 4-12 years. Risk of Bias was conducted through guidelines for systematic review by the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA). Data extraction was reported by tabulating author(s) and year, sample characteristics, outcome measures used, study design, intervention details (experimental, comparator, study setting, duration), and outcomes of the studies. Results: In the present review of 13 studies, two studies used iPad interventions, while 11 used computer-based interventions, targeting various clinical groups like developmental delays, dyslexia, cerebral palsy, hearing impairment, down syndrome, hydrocephalus, and special needs. Occupational therapists led most studies, with some involving physiotherapists, educators, and multidisciplinary teams. iPad interventions focused on visual skills with structured apps, while computer methods included games and software like Microsoft Office and Computerised Visual Perception Training (CVPT) for visual training. Positive effects were seen on visual perception and motor skills across different conditions with these technology-based interventions. Conclusion: Visual perception interventions, particularly those incorporating technology, have become invaluable in the field of paediatric occupational therapy. As technology continues to evolve, occupational therapists must remain adaptive and innovative in their strategies to provide the best possible support for children with visual perception difficulties.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.405
GPT teacher head0.682
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it