MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411616950 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2025.1569438

Eye-hand coordination during upper limb motor tasks in individuals with or without a neurodevelopmental disorder: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4411616950 on OpenAlexaff
Manel Abid, Isabelle Poitras, Martine Gagnon, Catherine Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye–hand coordinationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceMotor coordinationUpper limbPsychologyNeurodevelopmental disorderMedicineDevelopmental psychologyAutism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Individuals living with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) often face challenges in performing daily manual activities that require precise visuomotor coordination. This systematic review aimed to characterize the differences between individuals with and without NDD in spatiotemporal eye-hand coordination when performing upper limb (UL) motor tasks. Methods: The following databases were systematically searched: CINAHL Plus with Full Texts (EBSCOhost), EMBASE.com, WEB OF SCIENCE core collection, All Ovid MEDLINE(R) and ERGONOMICS ABSTRACTS (EBSCOhost) in December 2022 and re-searched in April 2024. The studies selection was performed independently by two researchers according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) individuals diagnosed with NDD; (2) inclusion of aged-matched control (CTRL) group; and (3) measurement of spatial and/or temporal coupling between oculomotor control and UL motor control during an UL task. Results: Twelve articles were included with a total of 427 participants. Most of the included studies (75%) were high-quality papers, and the remaining ones were of moderate quality. Participant's NDDs were mainly developmental coordination disorder, cerebral palsy or autism spectrum disorder. The UL tasks performed in these studies were categorized as pointing tasks, manipulating tasks or tracing and copying tasks. Eye-hand coordination temporal pattern did not differ between individuals with and without NDD in simple tasks involving direct pointing at a single stationary target. In the case of more complex tasks in terms of visuomotor and/or cognitive integration, especially for the more complex manipulation or sequential movements, individuals with NDD exhibited significantly different behaviors, with larger temporal gaps between the timing of eyes movement relative to that of the hand and more reliance on visual monitoring of hand movements. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review suggest that individuals with NDD face significant challenges in efficiently integrating visual and motor information during UL tasks that are visually, cognitively and/or physically more demanding, with more reliance on visual feedback control. These findings emphasize the importance of monitoring eye-hand coordination deficits in this population to further improve and tailor therapeutic 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207