Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23298791›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS2013

Motor contingency learning and infants with Spina Bifida.

Heather B Taylor, Marcia A Barnes, Susan H Landry, Paul Swank, Jack M Fletcher, Furong Huang

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06560788 (Chiari II Brain Malformation), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06560788 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Chiari II Brain Malformation: The Role of Cerebrospinal Fluid in Neurodevelopmental Defects Associated With Spina Bifida

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2024 to 2027Enrolled18ConditionsMyelomeningocele, Brain Malformation, Chiari Malformation Type 2Armscollection of cerebrospinal fluid
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pediatric Spina Bifida and Spinal Cord Injury.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Spina bifida.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2015
    Review
  7. Neuropsychological care guidelines for people with spina bifida.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heather B TaylorDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. heather.taylor@uth.tmc.edu
Marcia A Barnes
Susan H Landry
Paul Swank
Jack M Fletcher
Furong Huang
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USUniversity of Houston · US

Funding

SUBJECT RECRUITMENT AND EVALUATION COREP01HD035946 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI FLETCHER, JACK M · 1998 to 2009
$10.8M
NICHD NIH HHS P01 HD035946NICHD NIH HHS P01HD35946
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infants with Spina Bifida (SB) were compared to typically developing infants (TD) using a conjugate reinforcement paradigm at 6 months-of-age (n = 98) to evaluate learning, and retention of a sensory-motor contingency. Analyses evaluated infant arm-waving rates at baseline (wrist not tethered to mobile), during acquisition of the sensory-motor contingency (wrist tethered), and immediately after the acquisition phase and then after a delay (wrist not tethered), controlling for arm reaching ability, gestational age, and socioeconomic status. Although both groups responded to the contingency with increased arm-waving from baseline to acquisition, 15% to 29% fewer infants with SB than TD were found to learn the contingency depending on the criterion used to determine contingency learning. In addition, infants with SB who had learned the contingency had more difficulty retaining the contingency over time when sensory feedback was absent. The findings suggest that infants with SB do not learn motor contingencies as easily or at the same rate as TD infants, and are more likely to decrease motor responses when sensory feedback is absent. Results are discussed with reference to research on contingency learning in infants with and without neurodevelopmental disorders, and with reference to motor learning in school-age children with SB.

Indexed as

ArmChildChild, PreschoolDevelopmental DisabilitiesFemaleHumansInfantLearning DisabilitiesLongitudinal StudiesMaleMovementPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeReinforcement, PsychologyRetention, PsychologySpinal Dysraphism

Identifiers

PMID23298791
PMCPMC4067977
OpenAlexW2097516132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.