Understanding Personal Space in Children With and Without Developmental Coordination Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When approaching another individual, individuals maintain a protective zone (personal space) to ensure sufficient time for gait modifications. Although personal space dimensions are consistent in young adult literature, children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) may have inconsistencies in personal space due to difficulties with perception–action judgments. The purpose was to investigate personal space dimensions in children with and without DCD. Children with DCD ( N = 21, 10.32 [1.78] years, 15 males) and neurotypical controls ( N = 21, 10.01 [1.29] years, 11 males) completed a stop-distance task. Participants walked toward an object or pedestrian, at varying angles, and stopped when they felt that they were too close. Further, the pedestrian walked toward the stationary participant, at varying angles. Qualisys motion capture system (120 Hz) was used to record body position of the participant and the pedestrian. Regardless of group, children maintained a larger personal space distance when interacting with an object or pedestrian head-on compared to an angle ( p < .001). In both static, F (1, 40) = 4.15, p = .048, f = 0.10, and dynamic, F (1, 40) = 5.08, p = .03, f = 0.13, conditions involving a pedestrian, children with DCD maintained a larger personal space distance compared with neurotypical children. Findings from the study suggest that children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) maintain a larger personal space when interacting with another person, perhaps as a compensatory mechanism to accommodate for motor coordination difficulties.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".