Brain-behavior correlates of rhythmic timing and auditory-motor synchronization in children with developmental coordination disorder: an EEG study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulnerabilities in motor control and sensorimotor timing are hallmarks of developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Although the positive effects of rhythmic entrainment on motor performance have been demonstrated in adults with movement disorders, interactions between auditory and motor systems have not been well characterized in children with DCD. We employed neuropsychological tests, caregiver reports, adaptive psychophysical procedures, finger-tapping paradigms, and electroencephalography (EEG) recordings to determine whether children with DCD have auditory-perceptual difficulties, whether rhythmic auditory cues can improve their motor performance, and whether extensive musical training contributes to enhanced auditory-motor abilities. Thirty-four children aged 7-11 years participated, including children with DCD and typically developing children with and without musical training. As hypothesized, children with DCD exhibited difficulties in rhythmic timing in both auditory-perceptual and motor tasks, especially compared to typically developing children with musical training. Notably, rhythmic auditory stimuli significantly improved motor performance across groups, which was linked to increased beta power and reduced functional connectivity in the ipsilateral fronto-central network compared to unpaced movements. Moreover, children with musical training consistently outperformed their DCD and TD peers across tasks and showed greater interhemispheric connectivity during auditory-motor synchronization, suggesting that rhythmic skills can be enhanced through practice. Our findings provide compelling evidence for the use of individually tailored auditory/rhythm-based interventions in children with DCD and highlight the positive effects of music education on auditory-motor development. Given the strong association between rhythm perception and movement, future studies should continue to investigate the link between auditory and motor skills to identify the profiles of children who are most likely to benefit from such interventions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".