Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 308

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive and neuroimaging findings in developmental coordination disorder: new insights from a systematic review of recent research

Open access
Wilson, Peter H, Smits‐Engelsman, Bouwien, Caeyenberghs, Karen, Steenbergen, Bert, Sugden, David, Clark, Jane, Mumford, Nick, Blank, Rainer·2017·Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology

Abstract

Aim: To better understand the neural and performance factors that may underlie developmental coordination disorder (DCD), and implications for a multi‐component account. Method: A systematic review of the experimental literature published between June 2011 and September 2016 was conducted using a modified PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study type) framework. A total of 106 studies were included. Results: Behavioural data from 91 studies showed a broad cluster of deficits in the anticipatory control of movement, basic processes of motor learning, and cognitive control. Importantly, however, performance issues in DCD were often shown to be moderated by task type and difficulty. As well, we saw new evidence of compensatory processes and strategies in several studies. Neuroimaging data (15 studies, including electroencephalography) showed reduced cortical thickness in the right medial orbitofrontal cortex and altered brain activation patterns across functional networks involving prefrontal, parietal, and cerebellar regions in children with DCD than those in comparison groups. Data from diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging suggested reduced white matter organization involving sensorimotor structures and altered structural connectivity across the whole brain network. Interpretation: Taken together, results support the hypothesis that children with DCD show differences in brain structure and function compared with typically developing children. Behaviourally, these differences may affect anticipatory planning and reduce automatization of movement skill, prompting greater reliance on slower feedback‐based control and compensatory strategies. Implications for future research, theory development, and clinical practice are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dmcn.13530

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 308

Metadata

Authors
Wilson, P. H., Smits‐Engelsman, B., Caeyenberghs, K., Steenbergen, B., Sugden, D., Clark, J., Mumford, N., & Blank, R.
Venue
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-09-05
Volume
59
Issue
11
Pages
1117-1129
ISSN
  • 0012-1622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8749
OpenAlex
W2751106774
Cited by
308
References
126
FWCI
5.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.