Predicting Age and Visual-Motor Integration Using Origami Photographs: Deep Learning Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Origami is a popular activity among preschool children and can be used by therapists as an evaluation tool to assess children's development in clinical settings. It is easy to implement, appealing to children, and time-efficient, requiring only simple materials-pieces of paper. Furthermore, the products of origami may reflect children's ages and their visual-motor integration (VMI) development. However, therapists typically evaluate children's origami creations based primarily on their personal background knowledge and clinical experience, leading to subjective and descriptive feedback. Consequently, the effectiveness of using origami products to determine children's age and VMI development lacks empirical support. Objective: This study had two main aims. First, we sought to apply artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to origami products to predict children's ages and VMI development, including VMI level (standardized scores) and VMI developmental status (typical, borderline, or delayed). Second, we explored the performance of the AI models using all combinations of photographs taken from different angles. Methods: A total of 515 children aged 2-6 years were recruited and divided into training and testing groups at a 4:1 ratio. Children created origami dogs, which were photographed from 8 different angles. The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, 6th Edition, was used to assess the children's VMI levels and developmental status. Three AI models-ResNet-50, XGBoost, and a multilayer perceptron-were combined sequentially to predict age z scores and VMI z scores using the training group. The trained models were then tested using the testing group, and the accuracy of the predicted VMI developmental status was also calculated. Results: The R2 of the age and the VMI trained models ranged from 0.50 to 0.73 and from 0.50 to 0.66, respectively. The AI models that obtained an R2>0.70 for the age model and an R2>0.60 for the VMI model were selected for model testing. Those models were further examined for the accuracy of the VMI developmental status, the correlations, and the mean absolute error (MAE) of both the age and the VMI models. The accuracy of the VMI developmental status was about 71%-76%. The correlations between the final predicted age z score and the real age z score ranged from 0.84 to 0.85, and the correlations of the final predicted VMI z scores to the real z scores ranged from 0.77 to 0.81. The MAE of the age models ranged from 0.42 to 0.46 and those of the VMI models ranged from 0.43 to 0.48. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that AI techniques have a significant potential for predicting children's development. The insights provided by AI may assist therapists in better interpreting children's performance in activities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".