Relationship of Handwriting Skills with Cognitive Functions and Sensory Processing in the Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims Handwriting involves complex processes, including cognitive function and sensory processing. Cognitive function and sensory processing change with aging. However, the relationship between these parameters remains unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between cognitive function and sensory processing with handwriting skills in the older adults.Methods Fifty-six community-dwelling individuals aged 65-75 years completed a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and handwriting tasks.Results The mean age was 70.62 ± 3.49 years. The strongest correlations were observed between MoCA and the handwriting subtest. Low registration, sensory sensitivity, and sensation avoiding were positively correlated with handwriting subtests. Moreover, the results showed that these skills were also predictive of older adults’ handwriting skills (p < 0.05).Conclusions It is crucial for occupational therapists and physiotherapists to integrate handwriting skill assessment into their clinical settings in terms of its relationship with cognitive and sensory processing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".