Motor gesture: a gap between motor skills and movement assessment

Abstract

A developmental disorder can be reflected in the subject’s motricity, which justifies the qualitative observation of movement aimed at screening and even diagnosing disabilities and developmental disorders. However, adolescents with low school performance show unusual motor manifestations not observed in the general population and that do not necessarily reveal themselves in motor or functional skills, but in the quality and proportion of the movement in relation to the act. Based on the scarce literature on this phenomenon, this article aims to address the construct that we call motor gesture, contributing to a reflection in the field of Physical Education, aiming to improve its technical, scientific and pedagogical processes for the inclusion of the studied population.

Keywords
Motor development; developmental disorder; motor skill; motor gesture

Resumo

Um transtorno do desenvolvimento pode ser refletido na motricidade do sujeito, o que justifica a observação qualitativa do movimento visando ao despiste e até mesmo ao diagnóstico de deficiências e transtornos do desenvolvimento. Apesar disso, adolescentes com baixo desempenho escolar aparentam manifestações motoras incomuns a pessoas típicas e que não se revelam, necessariamente, em habilidades motoras ou funcionais, mas na qualidade e na proporção do movimento em relação ao ato. Com base na escassez de evidências sobre esse fenômeno, este artigo objetiva abordar o construto que aqui denominamos gesto motor, contribuindo para uma reflexão no âmbito da educação física, visando ao aprimoramento de seus processos técnicos, científicos e pedagógicos para a inclusão da população aqui retratada.

Palavras-chave
Desenvolvimento motor; transtorno do desenvolvimento; habilidade motora; gesto motor

Introduction

Motor development studies have provided better insight into the relationships between motor skills and other dimensions of development, such as social skills (Holloway & Long, 2019; Leonard & Hill, 2014), higher-order cognitive skills (van der Fels et al., 2015), living in a home environment, socioeconomic status (Ferreira et al., 2018), and school performance (Schmidt et al., 2017). A clear association is also seen between fine and gross motor skills and performance in specific cognitive domains such as working memory and sustained attention, reflecting vocabulary and reasoning, as well as aerobic fitness and participation in leisure sport are positively associated with spatial working memory, sustained attention, and reaction time (Geertsen et al., 2016).

Evidence on motor skills has provided educators and health professionals with knowledge to identify atypical characteristics and intervene technically and professionally, using methods and strategies that are appropriate to each case (Payne et al., 2007). Therefore, identifying and intervening in typical and atypical developmental characteristics are actions that naturally involve observing how motor tasks/tests are performed, such as orientation in time and space, drawing figures, writing patterns, balance, among others (Erasmus et al., 2016). The analysis of motor skills is the foundation of such process.

In the context of neurodevelopmental disorders, motor skills—although not considered diagnostic criteria—are one of the factors that indicate atypical development (Bishop & Pangelinan, 2018) and highlight the importance of movement as a parameter to detect any dysfunction that may affect social and academic life (Pulzi & Rodrigues, 2015). Motor performance, while showing positive association with school achievement (Grissmer et al., 2010; MacDonald et al., 2018; Nobre et al., 2017; Potter et al., 2013), has been more closely related to developmental disorders, reflecting the common practice of using motor tests associated with atypical developmental profiles. It justifies the generalization of the literature on motor skills research within and between groups (Bishop & Pangelinan, 2018).

Still, further studies are required to assess the factors that influence the relationships between motor and academic performance in adolescents with and without typical development (MacDonald et al., 2018), given that some of them seem to show (atypical) motor patterns that are incompatible with their developmental profile. This is an apparent motor manifestation uncommon to people without neurodevelopmental disorders, which is not necessarily observed in motor or functional skills, but in qualitative-aesthetic aspects, suggesting a phenomenon in the sphere of motor control, i.e., in the context of the interaction of the subject, the environment, and the task performed (Gaudez et al., 2016). This motor characteristic has been observed in typical adolescents with poor academic performance, both in physical education and daily spontaneous situations, in which simple actions or gestures are performed with motor responses that are often unnecessary or inconsistent with the demands of the task. The qualitative-aesthetic aspect of this condition is related to the quality of movement in the context of gestures and the proportion of the subject’s movement in relation to the response required by the task, which distinguishes it from motor skills and leads us to question how we could conceptualize and explore it in order to measure and classify it.

Movement quality is also employed in the field of dance, physical activities, and physical therapy rehabilitation. Notably, this variable is associated, in the case of dance, with expressiveness and communication in choreographic gestures (Siqueira, 2006), with a functional focus on the field of physical training and rehabilitation, evaluated by tests such as the Functional Movement Screen (FMS, Cavalcanti et al., 2019). On the other hand, movement quality scientifically consolidated and addressed in the aforementioned segments is not related to the quality assessed here, which apparently could not be properly analyzed by available motor assessment instruments and methods, which have a focus on motor and functional skills.

In the perspective of a critical literature review, based on the scarcity of evidence of the theoretical concept named here as motor gesture, this article aims to address this construct by debating it in the context of developmental disorders and confronting it with motor and functional skills as an element in the analysis of motor development. The reflection motivated by this review is in line with the scientific (and even social) anonymity of a school population that, due to its typical developmental status, may experience a form of segregation that is similar to that of the population with disabilities, with the aggravation of not receiving specific formal or informal attention because it does not have its own “name” and profile. In this sense, this article contributes to the recognition of and debate on the phenomenon in question and to a reflection within the scope of physical education as a field of knowledge whose study topic and application is motricity or human movement, the culture of body movement (Conselho Nacional de Educação, 2018), aiming to improve its technical, scientific, and pedagogical processes for the inclusion of the population assessed here.

Motor skills vs. motor gesture

Movement assessment tools that are currently available include analysis of quality, precision and speed, but these variables refer to how the task is performed in tests of motor or functional skills (Mélo, 2011), with a focus on “success” or “failure” while performing conventional tasks (jumping, balance, pattern of lines drawn or alignment of objects), and not on the movement itself, which is mainly assessed by observing body/postural control and adjusting task demands. It is this gap between motor skills and movement assessment that we intend to discuss here, addressing the phenomenon in the movement state during the act, that is, in the motor gesture.

Gallahue et al. (2013), when reporting a distinction between motor skills and movement skills, suggest what could be an answer to our question about the gap between performing a test task and analyzing the movement itself. The authors define motor skill as a learned task or action involving voluntary movement of one or more parts of the body, focused on a certain goal, while highlighting that movement skill is related to observed movement. It may suggest the existence of processes to analyze the movement itself, which would support our idea of evaluating movement based on observing the action itself.

Although the authors identify movement skill as an element related to direct observation of the action, the observable aspects of the movement, it can be seen as an appreciation of the precision associated with the performance of the motor skill, limiting irrelevant movements. It becomes clear with the appreciation of the levels and stages of learning a new movement skill (Gallahue et al., 2013), in which the learner, starting from the beginner/novice level, through the intermediate/practical level to the advanced/refined level, becomes aware of the task and its objectives, progresses to a good general understanding of the challenge, seeks to improve the skill in its execution and, finally, reaches the refined performance and is able to modify it to achieve success (Table 1).

Table 1
Levels and stages for learning a new movement skill

Advanced/ refined level	The learner has a full understanding of the movement task and tries to perform it with conscious effort, assigning “a zone” to it.
	Stages		Cognitive state	Objective of the learner
	7	Individualized stage.	Fine-tuned performance, based on personal attributes and limitations.	Change performance to maximize success.
	6	Performance stage.	Gives little or no conscious attention to the elements of the task.	Perform with more accuracy, control, and efficiency of movement.
Intermediate/ practical level	The learner has a good general understanding of the movement task and tries to “feel” it.
	Stages		Cognitive state	Objective of the learner
	5	Application stage.	Makes efforts to refine the skill.	Use the task in some form of activity.
	4	Combination stage.	Combines skills, paying less conscious attention to their elements.	Integrate multiple skills in a fluid time/space sequence.
Beginner/ novice level	The learner tries to create a conscious mental plan of the movement task and acquire a basic awareness of task demands.
	Stages		Cognitive state	Objective of the learner
	3	Discovery stage.	Creates a conscious mental plan to perform the task.	Find more efficient ways to perform the task.
	2	Exploration stage.	Knows what to do, but is not able to do it consistently.	Experience how the body can move.
	1	Awareness stage.	Wants to know how the body should move.	Have an idea of how the task is performed.

• Note: From the beginner/novice level to the advanced/refined level, the learner experiences a seven-stage process that begins with the creation of a conscious mental plan of the task and ends with full understanding and mastery of the task, evolving from doubt about how the body should proceed in the face of a challenge to refined performance, changing it based on the need to maximize success (adapted from Gallahue et al., 2013).

This way, movement skill refers to the outcome of performing a task, whose success evolves to a specialized level as the response to the complexity of the challenge improves, like “hitting an object in the air or chopping wood” (Gallahue et al., 2013, p. 32). This gap between the task itself and the result of its execution (successful or not, with precision or not) is therefore what characterizes the gap between motor skill and analysis of the action, since the evaluation of movement consolidated in the scientific literature is based on the successful and unsuccessful performance of tasks associated with motor skills, more specifically fundamental motor skills.

Although most of the tests used in both motor and cognitive assessment have been designed for typical development (O’Brien & Kuhaneck, 2019; Tenorio et al., 2014), the movement assessment instruments available do not seem to meet the requirements of the population under discussion here, as the characteristics of the population do not suggest a relationship with the motor tests commonly used in the assessment process. In addition, it must be taken into account that standardized tests are based on fundamental motor skills of stability, manipulation, and locomotion, typical of the fundamental movement phase, between two and five years of age (Gallahue et al., 2013), a stage that refers to the basic field that will support the plenitude of motor skills (Clark & Metcalf, 2002). Then, performing expressive movement in the perspective of motor gesture is not a characteristic of traditional tests.

The transactional processes between specific action factors (task), hereditary and biological factors (individual), and experience and learning factors (environment) during the development of stability, locomotion and manipulation skills are influenced by constraints of the task, of the individual, and of the environment, which change each other in an attempt to improve movement, with perception as a critical factor for the quality of motor performance (Gallahue et al., 2013). This perceptual-motor process, whose potential ranges from interaction to interchange with a view to appropriate movement, is highlighted and provides an understanding of motor gesture, in essence, such as the expression of the motor act, observable from the postural control and body adjustments to task demands.

This expression of motricity, which, in our opinion, clearly defines the proposed construct, extends the discussion to a psychomotor perspective, since our debate is focused on the demand for full appreciation of human movement. Considering the natural complexity of the subject, based on a holistic, total and systemic notion of the body and motricity, in a relationship between the human being and the environment that creates and materializes consciousness (Fonseca, 2012a), we can propose that motor gesture, as a descriptive means of movement, could be an important element for assessment processes in the psychomotor field, since even in this field, assessment is associated with conventional methods that focus on test results.

Therefore, motor gesture is not expressed in motor tasks themselves, but in their form, rhythm, proportion and how they are performed, corresponding to the intentional manifestation and expression of the personality that reveals the creation and materialization of consciousness (Fonseca, 2012b), reaching a dimension that fills the gap between action and its execution in the field of psychomotricity. Motor gesture would be the “image of movement,” the product of motor development that can be observed in this perspective, in the reciprocal relationship between space, time, and proportion (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Theoretical model of motor gesture. The specific constraints regarding the demands of the movement task, the individual’s biology and the conditions of the learning environment determine the development of motor control and movement coordination, observable in the perspective of motor gesture through the body’s adjustments (space, time, and proportion) as the product of a perceptual-motor process.

Therefore, motor tests to properly assess motor gesture would differ from traditional tests, involving challenges that go beyond the standard of performing or not performing the requested task, but based on the kinematic appreciation of the act. Motor gesture is then a construct not only related to an apparent motor incongruity in subjects with typical development, but also as a possible complementary element in the traditional assessment process of people with neurodevelopmental disorders, since standardized tests are not based on the movement itself.

The fundamental distinction between the assessment of motor gesture and the assessment of motor skills can therefore be explained by the object of analysis of each of them. Conventional instruments focus on the level of motor development based on developmental milestones and specific stages, thus constituting a channel to observe motor milestones (Gallahue et al., 2013). In turn, motor gesture would be the manifestation of motor control, which, in essence, is not limited to the motor task itself as it comprises a process that includes the task, at an interactional level with the subject and the environment (Gallahue et al., 2013; Gaudez et al., 2016). Then, motor control could be analyzed through motor gesture. This gap between motor skills and movement assessment can also reach atypical development because traditional tests ignore crucial factors in the assessment of subjects with neurodevelopmental disorders (precisely because they are standardized with populations of typical development), including challenges in motor control (Tenorio et al., 2014).

Motor gesture, influencing factors, and neurodevelopmental disorders

Although there is little evidence for more vulnerable subgroups, the literature seems to identify a set of variables that influence motor development and academic performance. In one of these variables, the level of physical activity has been observed as a positive element, suggesting that an increase in practical activities during physical education at school, during breaks, and in out-of-school time, can favor the academic performance of students (Barbosa et al., 2020; Chomitz et al., 2009). With an impact on the mental health and self-esteem of students, physical activity can promote better school performance and improved concentration and behavior in the classroom, leading to a better academic performance (Barbosa et al., 2020; Chomitz et al., 2009).

Socioeconomic and demographic factors, such as education, family income, school structure and practices, have a known association with academic performance (Chomitz et al., 2009; Pacheco et al., 2016), and their influence on child’s school performance must also be considered in the process. Gender tends to be a relevant factor in motor development, since the conditions for female participation and engagement in school physical education activities seem to be related to equal incentive, instruction and opportunity to refine motor skills, which significantly implies socio-cultural changes at the family level, considering that women in general are not as involved in physical activities as men. Also, the absence of a specific teacher in physical education classes in the early stages of basic education in Brazil is observed, as well as the predominance of soccer in classes with a qualified teacher throughout the school year, despite the diversified curriculum (Spessato et al., 2013).

Further studies are required to assess the factors that influence the relationships between motor performance and academic performance in adolescents with and without typical development, such as demographic factors (age, gender), socioeconomic factors (parental education, ethnicity), physical factors (body mass index, physical activity levels, muscular and cardiorespiratory fitness, pubertal status), behavioral characteristics (social behavior, classroom participation) (MacDonald et al., 2018). At the same time, the literature also reports that various factors (culture, ethnicity, socioeconomic conditions) have an influence on the perspectives and varied aspects of growth and development, just as motor development is characterized by a transactional perspective, with interactions of the cognitive, affective and motor domains, and of the individual, the environment, and the task (Gallahue et al., 2013), thus indicating that the biological process alone cannot provide the answers we seek. This perspective involves the role of environmental contexts, which highlights the importance of the subject’s perception of the environment and its meaning for the individual he interacts with. Then, the subject develops through experiences of interaction with the environments he attends and interactions between the various sites of these environments, being affected by the decisions arising from these interactions and socio-historical events throughout their life (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007; Gallahue et al., 2013).

If the findings tend to indicate the influence of the factors described above on the motor and academic profile of individuals with both typical and atypical development, we can assume that motor gesture, as an element in the observation of motricity, can be important not only for the specific population that originates this discussion, but also for the population with intellectual disabilities (ID). In this context, the scientific literature has suggested strong relationships between total intelligence quotient and general motor performance, and between specific cognitive skills of verbal comprehension and processing speed and gross and fine motor skills (Wuang et al., 2008), while indicating that gross motor competence is essential for adequate daily functioning and building of more complex skills, in subjects with both typical and atypical development (Downs et al., 2020).

Despite the studies on motor skills available in the literature, there seems to be poor evidence of the developmental profile of the adolescent under discussion (15 years old, in the first year of high school), as well as assessment methods focused on the apparent motor deficit of this population, which, due to its typical developmental condition, goes unnoticed by society and is subject to a reality that is even more segregating than that of the population with disabilities, as it is in a condition of social anonymity and invisibility. People with disabilities, despite all challenges they still face for being included and accepted without prejudice and discrimination in society, have their rights guaranteed by the Brazilian Inclusion Law (Brasil, 2015).

The profile of the adolescents who comprise the population assessed in this study is similar to that of subjects with ID, especially in the context of deficit in intellectual functioning at the level of academic learning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), and similar to borderline intellectual functioning, which, like ID at its various levels, also reflects low academic performance (Pereira et al., 2015) and, in the context of motor development, low performance in motor proficiency in school-age children (Jeoung, 2018). The similarities between the profile of the adolescent in question and the developmental conditions above may go beyond the observable phenotype, because, just as borderline intellectual functioning, tends to be almost invisible in the field of research, ignored by society and unnoticed in clinical settings due to the lack of specific training for health professionals to recognize it (Peltopuro et al., 2014; Wieland & Zitman, 2016), so the phenomenon in question may characterize an adolescent in the same conditions.

On the other hand, recently a growing debate has been observed about the relationship of physical activity, motor coordination, and cognitive development (Niederer et al., 2011), given the decrease in physical activity among young people (Knuth & Hallal, 2009) and the pressure from society (school and parents) for school performance (Chomitz et al., 2009). Therefore, the relationship of coordination, precision, and quality of movement seems to be a field that has been little explored (Lopes et al., 2013), not only among young people with typical development, but also among young people with developmental disorders, especially those with ID. In the context of attention and intervention, better outcomes in agility and dynamic balance are related to better levels of attention and working memory (Niederer et al., 2011), as children and young people with ID tend to present a lower performance in literacy and numeracy (Alloway, 2007) and that fine skills, which imply precision and greater motor control, are positively correlated with academic performance (Westendorp et al., 2011). On the other hand, interventions with a focus on the development of motor skills for these subgroups are positively related to better school performance (Lopes et al., 2013).

Despite the evidence of the association between motor performance and academic performance, this topic still has to be deeply studied in Brazil in terms of motor skills and school performance, given the impact on lives of students. Also, the literature presents scarce evidence of the quality analysis of movement in the perspective of motor gesture. Therefore, the understanding of these relationships is now expanded with the debate on motor gesture as a means to express the motor phenomenon. Understanding motor gesture and its relationship with the observed phenomenon and their relationship with academic performance can provide useful information in the context of physical activity planning and attention to motor performance, regarding improvements in school physical education curriculum with an impact on academic learning (Lopes et al., 2013).

How can motor gesture be assessed?

In our discussion, a key question emerged and became crucial to the debate and the search for an understanding of the central object of our thesis: how can motor gesture be assessed? The answer to this question becomes even more complex as this construct differs from the conventional standard of motor assessment in instruments currently available. Despite being well-established in scientific research, these instruments would not be suitable for motor gesture assessment, not only because they are limited to a positive or negative response to a motor task, but also because, regarding their own focus (motor skills), the reliability, validity, and viability of these tools for use with children with developmental disorders still seems to be unclear (Downs et al., 2020).

The phenomenon addressed here suggests motor manifestations related to motor control, which involves neural and physical mechanisms underlying human movement, and whose development is determined by specific constraints inherent in task demands, the biology of the subject, and the environmental conditions of learning (Gallahue et al., 2013). Therefore, the assessment process we need for the case under discussion here must involve observing the action itself, considering the interactions of the subject, the task, and the environment, and the possibility of manipulating the tasks and associated constraints, since during the action, the nature of movement variability is driven by the tasks (Astill & Utley, 2006), which deviates from traditional motor assessment standards and requires its own methods.

Given the unavailability of instruments that meet our expectations, we believe that, for a deeper debate and better understanding of the motor phenomenon discussed here and for the development of a specific assessment method (a very complex task), the first step should involve analyzing the movement pattern and establishing a motor profile for the studied population using proper technology for this purpose. The complexity of this case requires a study that must address body movement from a transactional perspective (Gallahue et al., 2013), going beyond the response to a test and observing variables associated with the process of subject-environment-task interaction. It could be done with a kinematic analysis, a process that allows a complete and accurate description of even a simple movement, as it involves parameters such as position, linear and angular displacement, angular speed and acceleration of the segment, joint rotation centers, among other aspects of the biomechanical analysis (An, 1984; Winter, 2009).

Kinematic studies involving people with atypical development have been conducted to assess the effects of Ritalin on the fine motor skills of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and developmental coordination disorder (DCD) (Flapper et al., 2006), the extension of coupling between upper and lower limbs in children with DCD (Astill & Utley, 2006), the walk-run transition speed in people with ID (Agiovlasitis et al., 2008), and the gait pattern of children with and without DCD (João et al., 2015). These studies have in common the fact that kinematic assessment was performed with traditional motor or functional tests, using manual dexterity tasks from the Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC), a computerized graphomotor task, a test of grasping a ball with both hands, and the gait (Smith et al., 2021).

As our discussion involves a new topic, the parameters to determine the elements and phases that will make up the evaluation process of the population in question require preliminary studies which, in our view, include a biomechanical analysis of the study topic. With typical technological resources of a kinematic analysis, we believe it is possible to study in detail the movement of adolescents with and without ID or developmental disorders, observing important elements in the perspective of motor gesture, such as proprioception, as well as variables that include cadence, speed, and joint angle during the activity (Smith et al., 2021). Therefore, with a study supported by technology involving elements such as sampling frequency, joint centers and specific anatomical points, body segments, and kinematic variables, it will be possible to establish a motor profile, define the movement pattern of the study population, and then start the development of an appropriate instrument/method of motor gesture assessment.

In a kinematic analysis in the perspective of the theoretical model of motor gesture (Figure 1), the process is based on two main pillars: one focused on the analysis of the movement itself using tests that reproduce standardized movements and proprioception, and the other focused on the evaluation of the proportion of movement in more functional activities, but without forgetting the observation of expressiveness as a focus. The first pillar has space and time as its main elements, as they are related to the kinematic variables observable in the assessment of the movement itself, such as cadence, fluency, timing and speed of movement, including variability in repeated test attempts (Astill & Utley, 2006; Flapper et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2021). The second pillar, which has proportion as its central element, is associated with the relationship between the expected movement and the movement performed in the task, which suggests the analysis of variables such as the ratio of the expected length or width of a step (or another movement) to its performed length or width, the speed and time of a movement, the joint angle, among others (Smith et al., 2021).

In a context that is more related to our needs, kinematic assessment is also used to analyze the spatial and temporal and kinematic characteristics of movements in some traditional Chinese Medicine body practices (tai chi chuan and qigong). It is in these body practices that we find the foundation to establish the standardized movements of the first pillar for motor gesture evaluation, since the series of movements comprise individual exercises (forms) that stand out for their slow, flexible, smooth and coordinated gestures, with fluidity at different speeds and directions, which requires good coordination of the whole body (Klich & Milert, 2018).

Regarding the first pillar, which focuses on movement in all its trajectory and respective adjustments, in addition to the kinematic parameters mentioned above, we believe that image overlay comparison could be a good strategy for our purposes, especially for the kinematic analysis, to support the development of a simple evaluation method. Studies aimed to generate arm gestures that reproduce the dynamic properties of human movements and evaluate alterations in the maxillo-mandibular complex to identify any alterations during growth or after orthodontic treatment and/or maxillofacial surgery (Aubry et al., 2010; Lo Giudice et al., 2021) have reported good results of the evaluation based on image overlay comparison. Figure 2 shows an example of two-dimensional (2D) superimposition of skull base structures.

Figure 2
Changes in the general face, the maxilla and its dentition, the mandible and its dentition, the amount and direction of condylar growth and mandibular rotation.

Also about the first pillar for motor gesture evaluation (reproduction of movement and proprioception), measuring the accuracy of position and sense of movement seems to be another good strategy for analysis based on the reproduction of standardized movements using simple low-cost tests, allowing us to observe the variation in the position of the limbs and joints of the individuals evaluated at different angles, in a process of memorization and repetition of the movement (Echalier et al., 2019; Li & Wu, 2014). Figure 3 illustrates a proprioceptive test with the upper limb at four joint angles.

Figure 3
Four joint angles of the upper limb in movement matching tests; the solid lines indicate the initial position and the dashed lines show the desired joint angles.

Movement segmentation also seems to be very useful, which can be done using stroboscopic photography or specific applications, allowing action steps to be detailed with stick figures stick-figure (Singh, 2019).

To analyze the proportion of movement, activities of daily living and functional activities can be adapted to the assessment process discussed here. Among the tests, manipulation of objects is one of the most important elements of the analysis, given the impact of restrictions in the human hand movement on function and quality of life (Reissner et al., 2019). Crossing an obstacle is another option of motor gesture tests, as it can promote an early detection of capacity and functional limitations (Lu et al., 2022), as illustrated in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4
Crossing a height-adjustable obstacle

Figure 5
Effects of angular changes observed in individual joints of a group of elderly people with mild cognitive impairment (black dummy) compared to a control group (gray dummy) when crossing an obstacle with a height at 30% of the lower limb length.

Fixation methods, position, and number of markers, the alignment along the axis, and the involvement of body parts, as well as the variation in the height of the obstacle and its distance in various directions, can be considered essential parameters for the analysis of the second pillar for motor gesture evaluation (Chen et al., 2004; Lu et al., 2022).

With so many options of analysis methods and techniques, and process simplification for practical efficient work with reliable results, the challenge includes the application of new strategies, since the construct we are discussing here does not yet have any experiments in the field of kinematic analysis. For this reason, specific software will be used, whose features allow the application of individual and combined techniques. Figure 6 reproduces one of the possibilities of kinematic analysis of the construct when a video of a standardized movement (left) is compared with a video of a subject reproducing the same movement (right), both superimposed (below). In addition to a study of expected and necessary kinematic variables, as well as the other methods described above, the image overlay comparison can constitute one of the possible strategies of the motor gesture assessment tool, to be addressed below.

Figure 6
Example of evaluation of a standardized movement with superimposed images using Kinovea, a software tool that captures, reproduces and analyzes videos.

A method for motor gesture assessment

When observing the motor manifestations of the specific adolescent in our discussion, we realized the analysis of this profile suggests excluding motor assessment based on theories of conventional motor or functional skills, since this is a phenomenon expressed in motor manifestations in the context of gesture and proportion of movement in relation to the demands of the action. Therefore, we understand the appropriate method for motor gesture assessment, supported by information from the kinematic analysis, should be based on performing standardized movements with fluidity and smoothness, such as those of taichi chuan and qigong (Klich & Milert, 2018), to be performed by the person being assessed.

These standardized movements can contain stages that match a count (of three or four time points), which would act as references for the dimensions contained in the method, based on the kinematic parameters adopted in the biomechanical assessment. While at the kinematic level, variables such as position, displacement, speed, and acceleration, among others, allow a good understanding of the movement (An, 1984; Winter, 2009), a specific instrument for motor gesture assessment could focus on dimensions related to the speed of movement execution and the similarity of performed movement to the standardized model. Despite that, an important element in the context of motor gesture assessment that should be included in this instrument would be the proprioception of the assessed person. It could be tested using the stages of each standardized movement (three or four time points), in which the person being assessed would perform the movement in stages, stopping in the position corresponding to each count/time point.

Figure 7 shows an example of a proprioceptive test for the instrument to be developed, inspired by the methods of image overlay, stroboscopic photography, and measurement of position accuracy and sense of movement, containing reference values for the analysis of a standardized movement in the perspective of our construct, with a silhouette for each time point of the action, which acts as a reference for the examiner when comparing it with the corresponding partial movement of the subject’s upper limbs.

Figure 7
References for standardized movement: assessment of proprioception

The movement exemplified in the image has four stages (0 to 3), each of them identified by a silhouette with its own score, with intermediate scores between them. In this case, the posture of the assessed person would be analyzed using the silhouettes corresponding to each time point of the gesture performed and the intermediate spaces between them, which indicate oscillation values associated with the variation in the limb position. Each silhouette corresponds to a score, from which 0.25 or 0.75 is subtracted, depending on the arm position in relation to the reference silhouette. At the midpoint between the silhouettes, there are gaps of 0.05, corresponding to poor performance in each stage of the movement. They are added up and/or added to other numbers obtained. The test results could be defined according to the Sturges Rule (K=1+3.3log(n)), considering values of 5 counted in a range from 15 to 100 (15, 20, 25, 30, 35... 100), obtaining 17 values which, according to the following example, would determine the classes and their respective intervals.

Number of classes:N=17K =1+3.3 log(17)K=5.06K=5 Total range:Max. – Min.100 – 15 = 85 Range of the interval:85/5 = 17 Intervals:15 |--- 3232 |--- 4949 |--- 6666 |--- 8383 |---|100

Number of classes: N=17 K =1+3.3 log(17) K=5.06 K=5

Total range: Max. – Min. 100 – 15 = 85   Range of the interval: 85/5 = 17

Intervals: 15 |--- 32 32 |--- 49 49 |--- 66 66 |--- 83 83 |---|100

If we considered the adequate aspects for the analysis of the motor gesture, the evaluation would be based on the following dimensions, with scores defined in the stages of each standardized movement and through the Sturges Rule:

1. Speed of movement execution

   1. Adequate (well assimilated interval): 100

   2. Slow with well-distributed count: 75

   3. Accelerated with well-distributed count: 50

   4. Accelerated with uncoordinated count: 15

   5. Slow with uncoordinated count: 15

2. Similarity to standardized movement

   1. Similar to the model: 100

   2. Close to the model: 75

   3. Good execution, but the movement is rigid: 50

   4. No esthetic expression: 15

3. Proprioception

   1. Similar to the model: 100

   2. Mimics the model with minor deviations: 75

   3. Mimics the model with major deviations: 50

   4. Very distant from the model: 15

The final result would be obtained by calculating the average of the scores for the three dimensions and comparing them to the classes defined by the Sturges Rule, now converted into decimal values:

• 0.83 to 1 – Excellent

• 0.67 to 83 – Very good

• 0.50 to 0.66 – Good

• 0.33 to 0.49 – Fair

• 0.16 to 0.32 – Weak

• < = 0.15 – Poor

Based on the observation of superimposed videos in the kinematic analysis, this method to evaluate the possible instrument can be materialized in the form of banners of A2 size (594 cm×420 cm) made of acetate sheet (Figure 8a). Each banner may show a printed standardized movement with the silhouette lines for each time point. The banner is positioned facing the assessed subject, and the distance between the two is adjusted so that the examiner matches the subject’s body to the silhouette printed on the instrument (Figure 8b). Using the standardized movement illustrated in Figure 7 as an example, the proprioception test may have the subject perform the task by spontaneously stopping at each silhouette related to the movement time points, depending exclusively on the subject’s proprioception, at which point the examiner records the values achieved by the subject on the banner.

Figure 8
Example of a banner and its use.

For instance, suppose a subject stopped their arm below the first reference silhouette, in the space corresponding to −0.25 | 0.75. The value of 0.25 would be deducted from the total score of 1 for the stage, thus scoring 0.75. The same process takes place in the following stages, where the partial results are added to the previous one and the result is divided by the number of stops in the test, in this case, three. Then, if the subject scored 0.75 at the first stop, 0.25 at the second, and 0.25 at the third, the average would be 0.41, a “fair” score. On the other hand, if the partial scores were 0.75, 0.75, and 0.25, the average would be 0.58, a “good” score. As our example involves a bilateral evaluation, the final result would be the average of the two scores (0.41 and 0.58): 0.49, a “fair” score. This dimension, like the others (speed of movement execution and similarity to standardized movement), is associated with observation of the movement.

Also, the motor characteristics of the population analyzed here involve an assessment of the subject’s response to task demands. The motor gesture assessment instrument, as mentioned above, would have two sections, one assessing the movement itself (reproduction of the movement/proprioception) and the other assessing the proportion of the movement in more functional activities. In the second section, the instrument/method has to include tests in which the subject is observed in situations that expose their ability to respond coherently to the task, allowing the analysis of the proportion of movement in relation to what is required by the stimulus, in an assessment that could be focused on motor control (Gaudez et al., 2016).

Tests for the proportion of movement should be based on daily situations in which the phenomenon of our study is most observed, including functional situations, allowing an assessment of the difference between the expectation and the reality of the subject’s response to the task. One characteristic observed in the subjects of our discussion is “excessive movement” in the face of certain obstacles. Walking under a beam or another object/obstacle causes a different motor response from that in usual situations, which would simply constitute a slight inclination of the head (Figure 9). This example could also be one of the tasks of our assessment tool because, like the obstacle crossing tests illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, the challenge involves adjusting the height to increase the complexity of the task. In the context of kinematic assessment, the analysis can include observing the proportion of limb movement, distance, speed, time, and joint angles during the task (Smith et al., 2021).

Figure 9
Expected response (a) and observed response (b); lowering the head slightly would be sufficient.

Walking between two chairs with sufficient distance without major issues may involve a deviation or even pushing one of the chairs to widen the free area; likewise, a situation that usually requires a simple arm deviation can produce a motor response that is clearly different to what is expected. Figure 10 illustrates the commonly expected reaction to an obstacle that is close to the body and the reaction of the subject observed in our discussion.

Figure 10
Expected response (a) and observed response (b); moving the arm sideways or behind the body is the expected response.

These are just a few examples of situations which, with the help of kinematic analysis, could be adapted and included in the list of tests in our assessment tool, whose development is currently underway, in parallel with the debate in this article. Also, as important as the attention to the population addressed here, we should not ignore the fact that the history of school physical education is marked by various forms of segregation and, regardless of the epistemological approach, breaking a paradigm depends on a collective and holistic effort supported by committed teachers, the school system, government leaders, families, and the entire community (Castro et al., 2020).

However, the most important effort must come from physical education itself, whose segregating tradition in school practice affects both people with typical development and individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders; whether through sportification that discriminates and causes loss of interest in students considered to be unskilled (Silva & Coffani, 2013), or through often contradictory attitudes of physical education teachers towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. These attitudes show teachers fear they are not being properly prepared to handle such students and lack of clarity about the benefits of this process for all students (Greguol et al., 2018).

In this perspective, the instrument we are trying to develop is not only intended to generate data or figures about the developmental profile of subjects and remove them from social or perhaps phenotypic anonymity, but mainly to ensure physical education an opportunity to reflect on its role as a field of knowledge whose object of study and application is precisely human movement (Conselho Nacional de Educação, 2018), the same element that, in the subjects of our discussion, seems to request attention and help, which, however, has gone unnoticed.

Final considerations

Despite the fact that further studies are required to confirm the evidence of the relationship between motor development and academic performance, and between these and sociodemographic and economic factors, the scientific literature shows a positive trend in associations between the processes and the factors mentioned above. The use of motor ability tests in evaluations of subjects with typical and atypical development reflects the importance of motricity as an element of the assessment of human developmental processes. Specialized literature in neurodevelopmental disorders has identified motor skills as a factor that indicates atypical development and an important parameter for the detection of potential dysfunctions. In this regard, we recognize that motor assessment has been increasingly strengthened as part of the screening process and tends to advance as a diagnostic criterion in cases of phenotypes such as DCD, ADHD, and ID. Despite that, an unknown developmental profile is reported in a subject, whose motor characteristics reveal a phenomenon that is both interesting and a reason for concern.

This article has brought into focus an atypical motor characteristic observed in subjects with typical development, starting a discussion about an individual that needs a definition and investigation, which naturally includes an assessment of their motor development. Even so, this is a case of typical adolescents with poor academic performance presenting motor manifestations for which, due to their nature, conventional tests of motor skills would probably not be suitable for such assessment. This way, we have a potentially new neurodevelopmental condition to study and the challenge of finding a specific assessment tool to help investigate this phenomenon.

The motor profile is based on manifestations that characterize non-qualitative movement in the esthetic aspect and regarding the response to the task demands. It suggests that motor ability tests could be inadequate for assessing the motor development of the subject in question, since the methodological process of traditional instruments is characterized by success or failure in the proposed test. Then, considering that motor manifestations observed in the subject are more interactional (subject, environment, and task) than executional, we believe that motor gesture is the element that reflects the motor phenomenon discussed here, whose investigation should include the search for the ideal assessment instrument/method.

As our discussion expands to address new horizons, concern about the social status of the adolescent in question should be taken into account and given a coherent position in the context, as this is a subject of typical developmental condition, which means their distinctive characteristics go unnoticed. The gap to be filled, therefore, is not restricted to the gap between motor skills and motor gesture. In this context, this article aims to claim the position of physical education as a field of knowledge and intervention whose object of study is precisely human movement/motricity, proposing a reflection on its technical, scientific, and pedagogical processes for the recognition and inclusion of this adolescent.

This reflection should include a deep analysis of the risk of even stronger discrimination against these young people in the context of school physical education, whose sport tradition that imposes a segregation on “less skilled” students that has already become cultural is combined with the doubts and fears of PE professionals regarding the inclusion of people with disabilities, which further aggravates the situation. The challenge has been launched.

• Copy Editing services:
  Portuguese version - Copy editing and standardization of citations and bibliographical references (7th. Edition APA): Yasmin Fonseca (Tikinet) [e-mail]
  English version: Silmara de Oliveira (Tikinet) [e-mail]

References

• Agiovlasitis, S., Yun, J., Pavol, M. J., McCubbin, J. A., & Kim, S.-Y. (2008). Gait transitions of persons with and without Intellectual Disability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(4), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599515
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599515
• Alloway, T. P. (2007). Working memory, reading, and mathematical skills in children with developmental coordination disorder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.07.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.07.002
• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
  » https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
• An, K. N. (1984). Kinematic analysis of human movement. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 12(6), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371451
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02371451
• Astill, S., & Utley, A. (2006). Two-handed catching in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder. Motor Control, 10(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1123/mcj.10.2.109
  » https://doi.org/10.1123/mcj.10.2.109
• Aubry, M., Julliard, F., & Gibet, S. (2010). Modeling Joint Synergies to Synthesize Realistic Movements. In S. Kopp & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Gesture in Embodied Communication and Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 231–242). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12553-9_20
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12553-9_20
• Barbosa, A., Whiting, S., Simmonds, P., Scotini Moreno, R., Mendes, R., & Breda, J. (2020). Physical activity and academic achievement: An umbrella review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165972
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165972
• Bishop, J. C., & Pangelinan, M. (2018). Motor skills intervention research of children with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 74, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.11.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.11.002
• Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2007). The Bioecological Model of Human Development. In Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114
• Castro, E. M. de, Figueiredo, G. A., & Campbell, D. F. (2020). The reality of inclusion in physical education in the Brazilian school system: Facts, theories and practice. Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte, 34(Esp.), Article Esp. https://doi.org/10.11606/1807-5509202000034nesp011
  » https://doi.org/10.11606/1807-5509202000034nesp011
• Cavalcanti, R. R., Araújo, V. R. Q. de, Vasconcelos, D. de A., & Júnior, W. R. da S. (2019). Avaliação funcional do movimento: Incidência do valgo dinâmico do joelho em mulheres praticantes de musculação e sedentárias. Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, 26(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-2950/17017026022019
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-2950/17017026022019
• Chen, H.-L., Lu, T.-W., & Lin, H. C. (2004). Three-dimensional kinematic analysis of stepping over obstacles in young subjects. Biomedical Engineering: Applications, Basis and Communications, 16(03), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.4015/S1016237204000219
  » https://doi.org/10.4015/S1016237204000219
• Chomitz, V. R., Slining, M. M., McGowan, R. J., Mitchell, S. E., Dawson, G. F., & Hacker, K. A. (2009). Is there a relationship between physical fitness and academic achievement? Positive results from public school children in the Northeastern United States. Journal of School Health, 79(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00371.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00371.x
• Clark, J., & Metcalf, J. S. (2002). The mountain of motor development: A metaphor. In J. E. Clark & J. H. Humphrey (Eds.), Motor Development: Research and Review (pp. 62–95). National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
• Conselho Nacional de Educação. (2018). Resolução CNE/CES n. 6. Institui Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais dos Cursos de Graduação em Educação Física e dá outras providências.
• da Silva Pacheco, S. C., Gabbard, C., Ries, L. G. K., & Bobbio, T. G. (2016). Interlimb coordination and academic performance in elementary school children. Pediatrics International, 58(10), 967–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/ped.12972
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ped.12972
• Deconinck, F. J. A., Clercq, D. D., Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Coster, R. V., Oostra, A., Dewitte, G., & Lenoir, M. (2006). Differences in gait between children with and without Developmental Coordination Disorder. Motor Control, 10(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1123/mcj.10.2.125
  » https://doi.org/10.1123/mcj.10.2.125
• Downs, S. J., Boddy, L. M., McGrane, B., Rudd, J. R., Melville, C. A., & Foweather, L. (2020). Motor competence assessments for children with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: A systematic review. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 6(1), e000902. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000902
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000902
• Echalier, C., Uhring, J., Ritter, J., Rey, P.-B., Jardin, E., Rochet, S., Obert, L., & Loisel, F. (2019). Variability of shoulder girdle proprioception in 44 healthy volunteers. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 105(5), 825–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.01.019
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.01.019
• Erasmus, M., Rensburg, O. J. van, Pienaar, A. E., & Ellis, S. (2016). The effect of a perceptual–motor intervention programme on learning readiness of Grade R learners from South African deprived environments. Early Child Development and Care, 186(4), 596–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1048245
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1048245
• Ferreira, L., Godinez, I., Gabbard, C., Vieira, J. L. L., & Caçola, P. (2018). Motor development in school-age children is associated with the home environment including socioeconomic status. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(6), 801–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12606
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12606
• Flapper, B. C., Houwen, S., & Schoemaker, M. M. (2006). Fine motor skills and effects of methylphenidate in children with attention-deficit—Hyperactivity disorder and developmental coordination disorder. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 48(3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012162206000375
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012162206000375
• Fonseca, V. da. (2012a). Manual de Observação Psicomotora: Significação psiconeurológica dos fatores psicomotores Wak.
• Fonseca, V. da. (2012b). Terapia psicomotora—Estudo de casos: Da caracterização à intervenção Âncora Editora.
• Gallahue, D. L., Ozmun, J. C., & Goodway, J. D. (2013). Compreendendo o desenvolvimento motor: Bebês, crianças, adolescentes e adultos (7th ed.). AMGH Editora.
• Gaudez, C., Gilles, M. A., & Savin, J. (2016). Intrinsic movement variability at work. How long is the path from motor control to design engineering? Applied Ergonomics, 53, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.08.014
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.08.014
• Geertsen, S. S., Thomas, R., Larsen, M. N., Dahn, I. M., Andersen, J. N., Krause-Jensen, M., Korup, V., Nielsen, C. M., Wienecke, J., Ritz, C., Krustrup, P., & Lundbye-Jensen, J. (2016). Motor skills and exercise capacity are associated with objective measures of cognitive functions and academic performance in preadolescent children. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0161960. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161960
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161960
• Greguol, M., Malagodi, B. M., & Carraro, A. (2018). Inclusão de Alunos com Deficiência nas Aulas de Educação Física: Atitudes de Professores nas Escolas Regulares¹ Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 24, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-65382418000100004
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-65382418000100004
• Grissmer, D., Grimm, K. J., Aiyer, S. M., Murrah, W. M., & Steele, J. S. (2010). Fine motor skills and early comprehension of the world: Two new school readiness indicators. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1008–1017. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020104
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020104
• Holloway, J. M., & Long, T. M. (2019). The interdependence of motor and social skill development: Influence on participation. Physical Therapy, 99(6), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz025
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz025
• Jeoung, B. (2018). Motor proficiency differences among students with intellectual disabilities, autism, and developmental disability. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation, 14(2), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1836046.023
  » https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1836046.023
• João, F., Veloso, A. P., Moniz-Pereira, V., Cabral, S., Martins, R., Bagão, V., Escalda, C., Campagnolo, J., Duarte, C., Almeida, S., & Kepple, T. (2015). Does induced acceleration analysis contribute to the interpretation of different gait patterns in children with cerebral palsy? (Work in progress). Gait & Posture, 42, S12–S13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.03.034
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.03.034
• Klich, W., & Milert, A. (2018). Tai chi and Qigong as a form of physical activity of people of all ages in the context of modern physiotherapy. Physical Activity Review, 6, 22–28. https://doi.org/ 10.16926/par.2018.06.05
  » https://doi.org/10.16926/par.2018.06.05
• Knuth, A. G., & Hallal, P. C. (2009). Temporal trends in physical activity: A systematic review. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 6(5), 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.6.5.548
  » https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.6.5.548
• Law, N.-Y., & Li, J. X. (2014). The temporospatial and kinematic characteristics of typical Tai Chi movements: Repulse monkey and wave-hand in cloud. Research in Sports Medicine, 22(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2014.881819
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2014.881819
• Lei n. 13.146, de 6 de julho de 2015, 13.146, Diário Oficial da União 2 (2015). Institui a Lei Brasileira de Inclusão da Pessoa com Deficiência (Estatuto da Pessoa com Deficiência) https://legis.senado.leg.br/norma/584958
  » https://legis.senado.leg.br/norma/584958
• Leonard, H. C., & Hill, E. L. (2014). Review: The impact of motor development on typical and atypical social cognition and language: a systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 19(3), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12055
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12055
• Li, K., & Wu, Y. (2014). Clinical evaluation of motion and position sense in the upper extremities of the elderly using motion analysis system. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 9, 1123–1131. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S62037
  » https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S62037
• Lo Giudice, A., Ronsivalle, V., Zappalà, G., Leonardi, R., Campagna, P., Isola, G., & Palazzo, G. (2021). The Evolution of the Cephalometric Superimposition Techniques from the Beginning to the Digital Era: A Brief Descriptive Review. International Journal of Dentistry, 2021, e6677133. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6677133
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6677133
• Lopes, L., Santos, R., Pereira, B., & Lopes, V. P. (2013). Associations between gross motor coordination and academic achievement in elementary school children. Human Movement Science, 32(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2012.05.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2012.05.005
• Lu, S.-H., Kuan, Y.-C., Wu, K.-W., Lu, H.-Y., Tsai, Y.-L., Chen, H.-H., & Lu, T.-W. (2022). Kinematic strategies for obstacle-crossing in older adults with mild cognitive impairment. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 14 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2022.950411
  » https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2022.950411
• Luo, Z., Jose, P. E., Huntsinger, C. S., & Pigott, T. D. (2007). Fine motor skills and mathematics achievement in East Asian American and European American kindergartners and first graders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151007X185329
  » https://doi.org/10.1348/026151007X185329
• MacDonald, K., Milne, N., Orr, R., & Pope, R. (2018). Relationships between motor proficiency and academic performance in mathematics and reading in school-aged children and adolescents: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081603
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081603
• Mélo, T. R. (2011). Escalas de avaliação do desenvolvimento e habilidades motoras: AIMS, PEDI, GMFM E GMFCS. In L. V. Castilho-Weinert & C. D. Forti-Bellani, Fisioterapia em neuropediatria (pp. 23–42). Omnipax.
• Niederer, I., Kriemler, S., Gut, J., Hartmann, T., Schindler, C., Barral, J., & Puder, J. J. (2011). Relationship of aerobic fitness and motor skills with memory and attention in preschoolers (Ballabeina): A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. BMC Pediatrics, 11, 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-11-34
  » https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-11-34
• Nobre, F. S. S., Bandeira, P. F. R., & Valentini, N. C. (2017). Academic achievement associated with motor performance and sex in different subcultures. Journal of Human Growth and Development, 27(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.115027
  » https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.115027
• O’Brien, J. C., & Kuhaneck, H. (2019). Case-Smith’s Occupational Therapy for Children and Adolescents—E-Book Elsevier Health Sciences.
• Payne, V. G., Isaacs, L. D., & Taranto, G. (2007). Desenvolvimento motor humano: Uma abordagem vitalícia (6th ed.). Guanabara Koogan.
• Peltopuro, M., Ahonen, T., Kaartinen, J., Seppälä, H., & Närhi, V. (2014). Borderline intellectual functioning: A systematic literature review. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52(6), 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.6.419
  » https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.6.419
• Pereira, A. M., Araújo, C. R., Ciasca, S. M., & Rodrigues, S. das D. (2015). Avaliação da memória em crianças e adolescentes com capacidade intelectual limítrofe e deficiência intelectual leve. Revista Psicopedagogia, 32(99), 302–313.
• Potter, D., Mashburn, A., & Grissmer, D. (2013). The family, neuroscience, and academic skills: An interdisciplinary account of social class gaps in children’s test scores. Social Science Research, 42(2), 446–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.009
• Pulzi, W., & Rodrigues, G. M. (2015). Transtorno do Desenvolvimento da Coordenação: Uma Revisão de Literatura. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 21(3), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-65382115000300009
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-65382115000300009
• Reissner, L., Fischer, G., List, R., Giovanoli, P., & Calcagni, M. (2019). Assessment of hand function during activities of daily living using motion tracking cameras: A systematic review. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine, 233(8), 764–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411919851302
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411919851302
• Schmidt, M., Egger, F., Benzing, V., Jäger, K., Conzelmann, A., Roebers, C. M., & Pesce, C. (2017). Disentangling the relationship between children’s motor ability, executive function and academic achievement. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0182845. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182845
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182845
• Silva, F. M., & Coffani, M. C. R. da S. (2013). O lugar da educação física no ensino médio: Entre a presença e ausência do aluno. Conexões, 11(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.20396/conex.v11i4.8637597
  » https://doi.org/10.20396/conex.v11i4.8637597
• Singh, G. (2019). Kinematical analysis of angle of shoulder joint at the time of short spiking skill in volleyball. International Journal of Physiology, Nutrition and Physical Education, 4(1), 592–596.
• Smith, M., Ward, E., Williams, C. M., & Banwell, H. A. (2021). Differences in walking and running gait in children with and without developmental coordination disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gait & Posture, 83, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.10.013
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.10.013
• Son, S.-H., & Meisels, S. J. (2006). The relationship of young children’s motor skills to later reading and math achievement. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52(4), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0033
  » https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2006.0033
• Spessato, B. C., Gabbard, C., Valentini, N., & Rudisill, M. (2013). Gender differences in Brazilian children’s fundamental movement skill performance. Early Child Development and Care, 183(7), 916–923. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.689761
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.689761
• Tenorio, M., Campos, R., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2014). What standardized tests ignore when assessing individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders. Studies in Psychology, 35(2), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2014.922264
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2014.922264
• van der Fels, I. M. J., Wierike, S. C. M. te, Hartman, E., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Smith, J., & Visscher, C. (2015). The relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills in 4–16 year old typically developing children: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(6), 697–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.09.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.09.007
• Westendorp, M., Hartman, E., Houwen, S., Smith, J., & Visscher, C. (2011). The relationship between gross motor skills and academic achievement in children with learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2773–2779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.032
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.032
• Wieland, J., & Zitman, F. G. (2016). It is time to bring borderline intellectual functioning back into the main fold of classification systems. BJPsych Bulletin, 40(4), 204–206. https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.051490
  » https://doi.org/10.1192/pb.bp.115.051490
• Winter, D. A. (2009). Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Wuang, Y.-P., Wang, C.-C., Huang, M.-H., & Su, C.-Y. (2008). Profiles and cognitive predictors of motor functions among early school-age children with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research: JIDR, 52(12), 1048–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01096.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01096.x

• Responsible editors:
  Associate Editor: Raumar Rodríguez Giménez https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9643-9314.

• Editor-in-Chief: Silvio Gallo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2221-5160.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  07 Oct 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  25 Jan 2023
• Reviewed
  12 June 2023
• Accepted
  27 Dec 2023
• Corrected
  25 Oct 2024