Proprioceptive and visual motion detection acuity contribute to children’s dynamic postural control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquiring efficient postural control strategies is key to children’s proper motor development. For that, the brain needs to continuously integrate sensory information and convert it into corrective motor commands. Although this entire process naturally hinges on the reliability of senses, very few studies have investigated sensory acuity and its role in postural stability during development. Clarifying this could lead to a better understanding of conditions, such as developmental coordination disorder, where the impairment of balance control is substantial. Therefore, we aim to determine the extent to which postural stability depends on sensory acuity, specifically proprioception and visual motion detection acuity, in typically developing children. Twenty-five typically developing school-aged children took part in the study. A visual motion detection test (VMDT) assessed their visual motion acuity. An ankle joint position sense test (aJPST) assessed their proprioceptive acuity. Force-plate-based posturography quantified their static standing balance stability with the standard deviation of the center of pressure in the antero-posterior (sdCoP AP ) direction. Finally, the Movement Assessment Battery for Children - Second edition (MABC-2) assessed their dynamic balance along with other motor skills. Correlation analyses and linear mixed models assessed the linear relationship between postural stability and sensory acuity. There was a significant correlation between the balance score of the MABC-2 and both VMDT score ( r = 0.60, p = 0.003) and aJPST score ( r = -0.47, p = 0.02). However, no such relationship was found between sdCoP AP during upright standing and the two sensory acuity scores. Importantly, the MABC-2 balance scores were associated with sdCoP AP , but only to a limited extent. Given that the MABC-2 balance component factors in static and dynamic balance while posturography focuses only on static balance, our results point at a key role of sensory acuity for dynamic balance. Together, these findings bring attention to possible clinical tools for motor impairment detection and subsequent rehabilitation strategies during development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".