Motor Function in Down's Syndrome

Anwar, Feriha

doi:10.1016/s0074-7750(08)60267-0

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to determine whether these delays in movement initiation are the result of the developmental delays associated with DS or whether these individuals are functionally different from the general population, researchers typically use a control group of individuals with undifferentiated developmental delays (UnDD) of a similar chronological and mental age. 1 Although Anwar (1981) suggested that individuals with DS are slower than their peers with UnDD, a review of the more recent literature reveals that the results are equivocal. While a number of studies show that individuals with DS have longer reaction times (RT) than their peers with UnDD (Berkson, 1960;Davis, Sparrow, & Ward, 1991;Henderson, Illingworth, & Allen, 1991;Hermelin, 1964;Hermelin & Venables, 1964), just as many studies indicate that there are no differences between the two groups (Inui, Yamanishi, & Tada, 1995;Knight, Atkinson, & Hyman, 1967;Mack & MacKay, 1989;MacKay & Bankhead, 1983;Miezejeski, 1974).…”

Section: The Processing Speed Of Visual and Verbal Movement Informatimentioning

confidence: 99%

The Processing Speed of Visual and Verbal Movement Information by Adults with and Without Down Syndrome

Welsh

Elliott²

2001

Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has indicated that individuals with Down syndrome (DS) have difficulties processing auditory movement information relative to their peers with undifferentiated developmental disabilities. The present study was conducted to assess whether a model of atypical cerebral specialization could explain these findings. Thirteen adults with Down syndrome (8 men, 5 women), 14 adults with undifferentiated developmental disabilities (7 men, 7 women), and 14 adults without disabilities (8 men, 6 women) performed rapid aiming movements to targets under three conditions: a visual cue at the target location, a visual cue remote from the target location, or a verbal cue. Results revealed that, while the reaction times did not differ between the two groups with disabilities across conditions, the participants with DS, unlike their peers, had significantly longer movement times in the verbal than in two visual conditions. These results are consistent with the model of biological dissociation.

show abstract

Section: The Processing Speed Of Visual and Verbal Movement Informatimentioning

confidence: 99%

The Processing Speed of Visual and Verbal Movement Information by Adults with and Without Down Syndrome

Welsh

Elliott²

2001

Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, there were no significant differences between the mean scores for children with learning disabilities and non-disabled subjects in terms of the response speed. Considering that children with learning disability and intellectual disability often demonstrate difficulty in motor planning and complex tasks (Anwar, 1981;Frith & Frith, 1974;Gubbay, Ellis, Walton & Court, 1965;Hogg & Moss, 1983;Kephart, 1960;Lincoln, Courchesne, Kilman & Galambos, 1985;Seyhan & Kayihan, 1993;Walton, Ellis & Court, 1963), these data support the classification of the response speed subset as 'simple patterns of movement'.…”

Section: I S C U S S I0 N/c 0 N C Luslo Nmentioning

confidence: 75%

Construct validity of the Bruininks‐Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales

Tabatabainia

Ziviani

Maas

1995

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construct validity of the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP) and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (PDMS) were examined by administering both tests to 40 children (24 boys and 16 girls) aged between 4.5 and 5.5 years. Factor analysis of the BOTMP and the PDMS subsets failed to support the original subdivision of both tests into fine and gross motor composites. Factor analysis suggested the existence of one strong factor underlying the structure of both the BOTMP and the PDMS subsets. This factor could be labelled 'general motor proficiency' in each test. A second much weaker factor emerged for both tests; however, the nature of these second factors was less clear. The results suggest that claims of test subdivision into gross and fine motor composites for both the BOTMP and the PDMS are misleading. Bruininks-Oseretsky, motor scales, Peabody, validity. K E Y W 0 R D S

show abstract

“…Rather than being a defect, this is an adaptive strategy to deal with some limitations to plan ahead and also to pre-program motor units into one-single and detailed motor program. These limitations have been pointed out before by a number of authors (e.g., Wade et al 1978;Seyfort and Spreen 1979;Anwar 1981;Kerr and Blais 1985;1987;Dummer 1985;Inui et al 1995;Jarrold et al 2009). DS individuals would show some diverse structural organization in regions involved in motor planning (the pre-frontal lobe) and programming (the cerebellum and basal ganglia) (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

A note on motor skill acquisition in mild and moderate Down syndrome individuals

Giménez¹,

Marquezi²,

Filho

et al. 2017

Psicol. Refl. Crít.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the acquisition of a serial motor skill in individuals with Down syndrome with two levels of handicap, mild group (mean age = 14.5 years, SD = 2.3, 7 individuals) and moderate group (mean age = 15.2 years, SD = 3.2, 7 individuals). The task involved single-arm sequential movements to five. The measures to access performance were overall sequence error, reaction time, and total movement time. To evaluate action program, formation variability of sequencing and relative timing variability were considered. Although there was no clear practice effect, the results showed that the level of handicap led to different strategies to plan and control the actions. The moderate group presented a less stable action program expressed in the variability in sequencing and timing. Their longer reaction times also suggest a heavy demand on central processing in accord with the onetarget advantage hypothesis and also due to memory deficits to select and plan movements.

show abstract

Motor Function in Down's Syndrome

Cited by 12 publications

References 66 publications

The Processing Speed of Visual and Verbal Movement Information by Adults with and Without Down Syndrome

The Processing Speed of Visual and Verbal Movement Information by Adults with and Without Down Syndrome

Construct validity of the Bruininks‐Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales

A note on motor skill acquisition in mild and moderate Down syndrome individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About