| Literature DB >> 29404228 |
Carlo Aleci1, Marzia Piccoli2, Valentina Melotti2, Elena Melis2, Lorenzo Canavese2.
Abstract
Purpose A model aimed at detecting the proportion of visuoperceptive and visuomotor coordination impairment in children with ascertained or suspected learning disability is described. The final purpose is to provide customized rehabilitation programs. Methods In this pilot study, four children (8-9 years) were administered a set of standardized tests to evaluate their ability to perform visuoperceptive and visuomotor tasks. Depending on the individual outcomes, two indexes have been computed from the resulting z-scores: η (Eta) that quantifies the visuoperceptive impairment, and μ (Mu) that expresses the alteration in visuomotor coordination. Results A condition of abnormality was evident in each patient: Subjects 1 and 3 suffered mainly from a visuoperceptive alteration (η higher than expected), while Subject 4 had reduced visuomotor coordination (μ higher than expected). Subject 2 showed balanced visuoperceptive and visuomotor impairment. Based on the obtained η and μ values, each child underwent a customized rehabilitation treatment, then they were examined again. At re-test, η or μ turned balanced and z-scores improved in the four patients. Conclusions The Eta/Mu model is effective in detecting the type of damage by quantifying the share of visuoperceptive and visuomotor coordination involvement in dyslexic children, allowing a customized rehabilitative approach. Such an approach, focused on treating the function found to be defective, appears to be effective in rebalancing individual visuomotor and visuoperceptive skills; it should, therefore, be taken into consideration when updating the rehabilitation plans of learning disabled children.Entities:
Keywords: customization; learning disability; motor coordination; rehabilitation; visuoperceptive
Year: 2017 PMID: 29404228 PMCID: PMC5794411 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1901
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
The assumed proportion of visuoperceptive (VP) and visuomotor coordination (VMC) involvement in each test of the diagnostic set
MLVS: Memoria di Lavoro Visuo-Spaziale
BHK: Concise Assessment Scale for Children’s Handrwriting
TCM: Little Bell Test revised
ROCF: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test
DEM: Development Eye Movement Test
| Test and tested function | VP proportion of recruitment | VMC proportion of recruitment |
| Corsi MLVS visual memory | 100% | 0% |
| Corsi MLVS simultaneous spatial memory | 100% | 0% |
| Corsi MLVS sequential spatial memory | 100% | 0% |
| BHK-quality | 30% | 70% |
| BHK-velocity | 30% | 70% |
| TCM-velocity | 80% | 20% |
| TCM-accuracy | 80% | 20% |
| ROCF-copy | 70% | 30% |
| ROCF-memory | 70% | 30% |
| DEM-ratio score | 100% | 0% |
| Average proportion of recruitment | 76% | 24% |
Figure 1Increase of η (continuous line) and μ (dashed line) as a function of the average z-score
Y-axis: η, μ arbitrary units
Explanatory example for the model
MLVS: Memoria di Lavoro Visuo-Spaziale
BHK: Concise Assessment Scale for Children’s Handrwriting
TCM: Little Bell Test revised
ROCF: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test
DEM: Development Eye Movement Test
| Test and tested function (VP, VMC involvement) | z.score |
| Corsi MLVS visual memory (100,0) | -3 |
| Corsi MLVS simultaneous spatial memory (100,0) | -2 |
| Corsi MLVS sequential spatial memory (100,0) | -1.5 |
| BHK- quality (30,70) | -0.5 |
| BHK-velocity (30,70) | -0.5 |
| TCM-velocity (80,20) | -1.5 |
| TCM-accuracy (80,20) | -2 |
| ROCF-copy (70,30) | -1.5 |
| ROCF-memory (70,30) | -2 |
| DEM-ratio score (100,0) | -2 |
| Average z-score | -1.65 |
| ηexp | 125.4 |
| μexp | 39.6 |
| Η | 140.5 |
| Μ | 24.5 |
Figure 2Prevalent visuoperceptive impairment
Y-axis: η, μ arbitrary units
Results from the sample before rehabilitation. Subject 3 refused to undergo the Corsi test
MLVS: Memoria di Lavoro Visuo-Spaziale
BHK: Concise Assessment Scale for Children’s Handrwriting
TCM: Little Bell Test revised
ROCF: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test
DEM: Development Eye Movement Test
| Test and tested function (VP, VMC involvement) | Subj 1 z.score | Subj 2 z.score | Subj 3 z.score | Subj 4 z.score |
| Corsi MLVS visual (100,0) | -1.75 | 0.36 | - | 0.69 |
| Corsi MLVS simultaneous (100,0) | -2.28 | -0.37 | - | 1.21 |
| Corsi MLVS sequential (100,0) | -0.19 | 1.48 | - | -1.75 |
| BHK- quality (30,70) | -0.11 | 0.3 | 0.21 | -1.4 |
| BHK-velocity (30,70) | -0.02 | -0.6 | -1.48 | -1.22 |
| TCM-velocity (80,20) | -2.4 | -1.4 | -0.44 | -1.05 |
| TCM-accuracy (80,20) | -3.5 | -3.6 | -3.28 | -2.6 |
| ROCF-copy (70,30) | -3.5 | -1.2 | -0.05 | -0.65 |
| ROCF-memory (70,30) | -3.8 | -2 | -2.31 | -1.05 |
| DEM-ratio (100,0) | 0.06 | -2.1 | -0.78 | -0.81 |
| Average z-score | -1.75 | -0.91 | -1.16 | -0.86 |
| ηexp | 132.92 | 69.39 | 76.32 | 65.59 |
| η | 140.29 | 69.60 | 82.70 | 55.56 |
| μexp | 41,98 | 21.91 | 39.82 | 20.71 |
| m | 34.61 | 21.70 | 33.44 | 30.74 |
| Δ η | 7.37 | 0.21 | 6.38 | -10.03 |
| Δ μ | -7.37 | -0.21 | -6.38 | 10.03 |
Figure 3The values of η and μ relative to the 4 patients examined in the study
Y-axis: η, μ arbitrary units
Results from the sample. Post-rehabilitation
Due to incomplete pre-rehabilitation (Corsi test data from Patient 3; see Table 3), post-rehabilitation Patient 3 data has been excluded.
MLVS: Memoria di Lavoro Visuo-Spaziale
BHK: Concise Assessment Scale for Children’s Handrwriting
TCM: Little Bell Test revised
ROCF: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test
DEM: Development Eye Movement Test
| Test and tested function (VP,VMC involvement) | Subj 1 z.score | Subj 2 z.score | Subj 3 z.score | Subj 4 z.score |
| Corsi MLVS visual (100,0) | -0.71 | 0.69 | - | 0.18 |
| Corsi MLVS simultaneous (100,0) | 10.72 | 1.19 | - | -1.43 |
| Corsi MLVS sequential (100,0) | -1.18 | 0.05 | - | -0.66 |
| BHK-quality (30,70) | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.05 | -1.59 |
| BHK-velocity (30,70) | -1.16 | -1.71 | -0-48 | -0.06 |
| TCM-velocity (80,20) | -0.97 | -0.7 | 1.8 | 0.5 |
| TCM-accuracy (80,20) | -1.66 | -0.27 | -0.78 | -0.15 |
| ROCF-copy (70,30) | 1.15 | 1.26 | -1.58 | -1.51 |
| ROCF-memory (70,30) | -0.3 | 0.57 | -1.29 | -2.14 |
| DEM-ratio (100,0) | 0.47 | -3.05 | -1.15 | -0.39 |
| Average z-score | -0.21 | -0.14 | -0.49 | -0.73 |
| ηexp | 15.96 | 10.34 | 32.20 | 55.10 |
| η | 13.95 | 9.45 | 35.31 | 50.70 |
| μexp | 5.04 | 3.26 | 16.80 | 17.40 |
| m | 7.05 | 4.15 | 13.69 | 21.08 |
| Δ η | -2.01 | -0.89 | 3.11 | -4.40 |
| Δ μ | 2.01 | 0.89 | -3.11 | 4.40 |
Figure 4Average z-score before and after the rehabilitation program
Figure 5Change in visuoperceptive (η) and visuomotor coordination (μ) in the four patients after the rehabilitation. Compare with Figure 3.
Y-axis: η, μ arbitrary units