Effects of the task complexity on the performance of a Coincidence Timing Task of people with Down syndrome

Abstract

With the present study, we aimed to investigate the task complexity effects on the performance of a coincidence timing task in individuals with Down syndrome. The experimental group was consisted by 26 subjects with Down syndrome, 20 years old (± 5), and classified as mild or moderate in International Classification of Functioning and Health. Each participant in the experimental group was matched by in function of gender and age with a participant in a control group without Down syndrome. Both groups performed a coincident timing task, in which the participant had different levels of structural and functional complexity. Performance measure was derived from the consistency (absolute error), accuracy (variable error) and direction of response (constant error). Individuals with Down syndrome presented spatiotemporal organization impairments related to the difficulty in dealing with motor demand in order to interact with the perceptive demand. They also experienced difficulty in adapt to task complexity, causing performance error in the task. Individuals with Down syndrome have deficits in perceptive and space-time organization, and this phenomenon may be explained by the difficulty in integrating perceptive stimulus to motor actions with a high number of elements involved.

Motor learning and transfer between real and virtual environments in young people with autism spectrum disorder: A prospective randomized cross over controlled trial

“…Studies using a coincident timing task with a control group (TD) and other diseases with altered posture and movement also verified better performance in the control group. Torriani‐Pasin et al [], de Mello Monteiro et al [], de Mello Monteiro et al [], and Bonuzzi et al [] found that the TD group was more efficient in sequences and errors.…”

“…The execution time was observed in each experimental stage and explained as follows: acquisition (A), retention (R), and transfer (T) [Trevizan et al, ]. A short‐term motor learning protocol was used based on previous studies by Gidley Larson and Mostofsky [], Torriani‐Pasin et al [], de Mello Monteiro et al [], de Mello Monteiro et al [], and Bonuzzi et al []. The motor learning protocol was organized through blocks of five trials each to ensure appropriate and representative evaluation of the participants' performances.…”

“…Before starting, the task was verbally explained and a demonstration was offered by the examiner. The execution time was observed in each experimental stage and explained as follows: acquisition (A), retention (R), and transfer (T) [Trevizan et al, 2018] Bonuzzi et al [2016]. The motor learning protocol was organized through blocks of five trials each to ensure appropriate and representative evaluation of the participants' performances.…”