Non-Linear Modeling of Motor Development in Typically Developing Children and Youth Aged 5–18 Years Using Robot-Based Behavioral Assessments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical tasks are often used to differentiate the motor performance of individuals who have impaired function. However, these are not as accurate and repeatable as robotic tasks. Additionally, motor development occurs rapidly at early ages and slows as they reach adulthood, resulting in a non-linear model of performance. There is also evidence that variability in performance changes as children and youth age. Accurate normative models of performance are necessary to identify deficiencies in motor performance and to track the efficacy of therapies. This work aimed to create normative models of motor development based on robotic assessments in typically developing children and youth. Two hundred and eighty-eight participants who are typically developing (ages 5-18) completed a robotic point-to-point reaching task and an object-hitting task using the Kinarm Exoskeleton. Exponential or quadratic curves were fit to performance parameters generated by Kinarm to model typical performance. These models included a linear term to account for changing variabilities with age. Most performance parameters showed improvement with age, and none showed deterioration. Some parameters showed large changes in variability in performance with age, with up to a 74% decrease in the range of typical performance. Reduced variability occurs with age, indicating the need to account for differences in variability when developing models of typical motor performance in children and youth. The models that are used to identify deficits in motor performance should account for changing variability in data and changing repeatability with age to increase the accuracy of identification of deficits.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it