Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder Play Active Virtual Reality Games Differently Than Children With Typical Development

Leandra Gonsalves, Amity Campbell, Lynn Jensen, Leon Straker
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140116 Published 1 March 2015
Leandra Gonsalves
L. Gonsalves, BSc(hons), School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amity Campbell
A. Campbell, BSc(hons), PhD, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lynn Jensen
L. Jensen, BAppSc, PostgradDip, MSc, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leon Straker
L. Straker, BAppSc, MSc, PhD, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia, Australia 6845.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Active virtual reality gaming (AVG) may be useful for children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) to practice motor skills if their movement patterns are of good quality while engaged in AVG.

Objective This study aimed to examine: (1) the quality of motor patterns of children with DCD participating in AVG by comparing them with children with typical development (TD) and (2) whether differences existed in the motor patterns utilized with 2 AVG types: Sony PlayStation 3 Move and Microsoft Xbox 360 Kinect.

Design This was a quasi-experimental, biomechanical laboratory–based study.

Methods Twenty-one children with DCD, aged 10 to 12 years, and 19 age- and sex-matched children with TD played a match of table tennis on each AVG type. Hand path, wrist angle, and elbow angle were recorded using a motion analysis system. Linear mixed-model analyses were used to determine differences between DCD and TD groups and Move and Kinect AVG type for forehands and backhands.

Results Children with DCD utilized a slower hand path speed (backhand mean difference [MD]=1.20 m/s; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=0.41, 1.98); greater wrist extension (forehand MD=34.3°; 95% CI=22.6, 47.0); and greater elbow flexion (forehand MD=22.3°; 95% CI=7.4, 37.1) compared with children with TD when engaged in AVG. There also were differences in movement patterns utilized between AVG types.

Limitations Only simple kinematic measures were compared, and no data regarding movement outcome were assessed.

Conclusions If a therapeutic treatment goal is to promote movement quality in children with DCD, clinical judgment is required to select the most appropriate AVG type and determine whether movement quality is adequate for unsupervised practice.

Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is a condition in which children have a marked impairment in motor development affecting their daily life.1 It has been reported to affect between 5% and 10% of children worldwide.1,2 Presentations can vary substantially and may involve both gross and fine motor control,3 which may influence overall movement quality. Reported impairments include lack of body position awareness, delayed reaction times, and reduced movement speed.2,4–6 Joint movements lacking precision and fluency, coupled with increased variability in task performance, also have been reported.2,4 The increasingly accepted internal model deficit (IMD) theory suggests that these deficits result from suboptimal motor planning and sensoriperceptual integration.1,2,4,7,8 More specifically, this theory hypothesizes that children with DCD have difficulty correcting movements in real time due to an inability to use or generate predictive estimates of body position.2 Failure to manage such impairments may affect a child's physical and psychological health.9 The lack of age-appropriate motor skills and low confidence in motor skills may lead children with DCDs to participate less in physical activities.8 Lack of participation in sports and play can affect a developing child's ability to learn and practice motor skills.4 This limited time to practice and develop motor skills may result in a cycle in which psychosocial and physical factors feed back on each other to further affect the child's ability to learn and develop normally.1 Thus, there is an argument for health care professionals to manage these impairments of movement quality in early life to optimize short-term and long-term health.10

A poor understanding of DCD etiology2 has led to diverse intervention styles, with more than 30 different approaches being reported.10 No one style of intervention has gained universal acceptance.11 There is debate whether participation in physical activity alone is sufficient as an intervention for children with DCD,11 or whether promoting good-quality movement should be the focus.2 It has been suggested that interventions addressing movement quality may precipitate neuroplastic changes and adjust deficient internal modeling processes, which are critical to motor rehabilitation.2,12 To be most effective, it is thought that interventions should consider the heterogeneity in presentations of children with DCD and should be engaging and involve many opportunities for motor practice.1,10,13 Thus, it is important to consider interventions that are appealing to children to enhance adherence to motor practice opportunities from an early age. Electronic games may be a useful means for achieving this aim.

Electronic games have been defined as an interactive activity involving manipulation of figures on a screen.14 A 2007 study indicated that 94% of American school-aged children had played some form of electronic game in the previous 6 months.15 There is strong evidence that electronic games increase motivation and self-confidence in children.14,16,17 They also provide immediate feedback about performance, which has been shown to be important for motor skill development, and may be particularly important in children with DCD, who are reported as having deficits in internal feedback modeling.4 Additionally, electronic game play is often unsupervised, allowing for a considerable volume of use within a home setting.16,18

Traditionally, electronic gaming has involved the use of a gamepad, joystick, computer keyboard, or mouse game controller.19,20 These devices involve only fine hand movements with little gross movement.21 There has been an emerging trend toward active virtual reality gaming (AVG).20 Two gaming platforms that have recently adopted AVG play are the PlayStation 3 Move (Sony Computer Entertainment, Tokyo, Japan) and Xbox 360 Kinect (Microsoft Inc, Redmond, Washington). Both use a video camera placed near the television screen to capture the movements of the player to create a simulated character that mimics the movements of the player.

In recognition of the potential therapeutic benefits of AVG, a growing area of research is examining the training of motor skills through AVG.18,22–26 Recent studies have implied relationships between AVG intervention and improved endurance, coordination, and balance in children with neurodevelopmental conditions such as cerebral palsy and Down syndrome.25,27–29 Furthermore, AVG has been shown to effectively improve balance in children with DCD.24 This finding suggests that AVG might help children with DCD improve other aspects of gross motor skill development, an area future research aims to confirm.22

Active virtual reality gaming may be useful therapeutically to simply gain participation in some form of physical activity for psychological benefits.30 Alternatively, the therapeutic aim may be to promote good-quality movement, thereby facilitating neuroplastic changes and the normal development of other body systems.1,12,18 Although AVG seems promising in a motor rehabilitation setting, little is known regarding the movement patterns utilized during AVG. To be most effective as an intervention for enhancing movement quality, a greater understanding of the movement patterns of children with DCD during AVG is required. This knowledge will allow therapists to form targeted goals and prescription guidelines to address the movement quality issues, thereby optimizing the benefit gained from an AVG intervention.

The primary aim of this study was to determine whether differences existed in the motor patterns of children with DCD and children with typical development (TD) during AVG table tennis game play. We hypothesized that children with DCD would utilize different movement patterns compared with children with TD. In order to establish whether clinicians can plan standardized treatment across systems, the secondary aim of this study was to compare the movement patterns required between 2 popular AVG systems (Move and Kinect) during table tennis. We hypothesized that differences in the required movement patterns would exist between the 2 AVG types.

Method

Design

We conducted a quasi-experimental laboratory study comparing hand path measures and upper limb joint angles of 2 groups of children (DCD and TD) playing AVG table tennis on 2 consoles (Move and Kinect).

Participants

In this study, we collected data from 40 male and female participants between 10 and 12 years of age (refer to Tab. 1 for participant information). Twenty-one children with DCD were recruited into a randomized controlled trial (RCT)22 examining the impact of traditional electronic games and AVG on motor skill. Baseline data from the RCT (collected in early 2011) were utilized in the current study. Nineteen age- and sex-matched children who were developing typically (TD group) were recruited and tested in late 2012. Eleven of the 21 participants comprising the DCD group were classified as either obese or at risk of being obese based on sex and age-corrected body mass index percentile, compared with only 3 of the 17 participants in the TD group with complete data (Tab. 1).31 Recruitment to the study was through school and community notices and networks. Children were included in the DCD group if they scored in the 16th percentile or lower on the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd edition (MABC-2)32 and their motor impairments affected their activities of daily living based on the parent-reported Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) (a score of 15th percentile or lower). These scores are reflective of children considered at risk for DCD.33,34 The children had no other obvious disorder likely to affect their coordination and participation in the study in accordance with the diagnostic criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV).11,32,35 Children were included in the TD group if they scored higher than the 16th percentile on the MABC-2 and had no reports from parents or teachers of movement problems affecting activities of daily living or academic performance.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1.

Characteristics of Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) and Children With Typical Development (TD)a

Active Virtual Reality Games

Two AVG types were used: (1) Sony's PlayStation 3 Move (Move), which uses a single motion-sensing camera to track the movements of a handheld wand together with sensors contained within the wand for translation, acceleration, and rotation,18 and (2) Microsoft's Xbox Kinect (Kinect), which tracks whole-body movement in 3 dimensions using an infrared laser with dual camera sensors, eliminating the need for a handheld controller.36 The game used was table tennis, from PlayStation Move Sports Champions (Sony Computer Entertainment) and Xbox Kinect Sports (Microsoft Inc).

Procedure

Volunteers expressing interest in the study were provided with participant information sheets outlining the study details. Informed written consent and assent were obtained from the participating parents and children.

Children attended the Curtin University Motion Analysis Laboratory for 2 hours of testing. Each child performed the MABC-2 test. Parents or guardians of those children scoring in the 16th percentile or lower were asked to complete the DCDQ. Participants were fitted with a set of retroreflective body markers on their preferred hand, forearm, and upper limb. Body markers were fixed to specific anatomical locations in compliance with the protocol of the International Society of Biomechanics.7 A three-dimensional motion analysis system (Vicon, Oxford Metrics, Los Angeles, California) was utilized to track the position of the markers throughout data collection at a sampling rate of 250 Hz. This system has been reported to be one of the most accurate and reliable systems, with reconstruction errors <0.5 mm.37

Following a standardized set of instructions, participants played table tennis on Move for 5 practice points, followed by one full game to 11 points. This process was then repeated using Kinect. During practice, the investigator was able to provide feedback about technique (eg, full forehand and backhand stokes were encouraged); however, no feedback was given during the formal assessment. All tasks were performed in the same order against a computer-generated opponent using the beginner setting, and all children were allowed rest between tasks to minimize the effects of fatigue on subsequent tasks. A consistent order was used to minimize participant burden given that a number of tasks were performed on each AVG type as part of the RCT.

Data Processing

Vicon motion analysis software (Nexus, Oxford Metrics) was utilized to check marker trajectories for breaks that can result from occlusion of the markers. Gaps were filled using algorithmic interpolation between trajectory end points, with no break greater than 20 frames in duration. The data were then filtered with a quintic spline filter using a mean square error of 3, as determined by a residual analysis.38 A valid upper limb three-dimensional mathematical model39 that utilized previously published upper limb segment parameters40 and followed recommended biomechanical procedures was applied in order to calculate upper limb kinematics.7

Three forehand strokes and 3 backhand strokes were randomly identified from both Kinect and Move game play data. A stroke was defined as the end of the backswing until the end of the forward swing for both backhand and forehand. A stroke was considered a backhand when the dominant hand was on the nondominant side of the body, with the palm facing away from the screen at the start of the forward swing, and a forehand was defined by the dominant hand being on the dominant side of the body, with palm facing toward the screen at the start of the forward swing. Two participants in the TD group (1 female and 1 male) had motion analysis data that were missing or corrupted and, therefore, were not included in the analyses.

A customized LabVIEW program (National Instruments Corp, Austin, Texas) was used to output hand path distance and speed and wrist and elbow range of motion for each stroke. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS (version 21, IBM Corp, Armonk, New York). Following assumption testing, linear mixed-model analyses were utilized to determine differences between DCD and TD groups (between-groups comparison) and Move and Kinect AVG type (repeated measures) and any interaction between group and AVG type. Alpha probability was set at .05.

Results

Hand Path Measures

Children with DCD utilized a significantly slower maximum hand speed than children with TD during the backhand strokes regardless of game type (mean difference [MD]=1.20 m/s; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=0.41, 1.98; P=.04) (Tab. 2), although there were no significant differences in hand path distance. Post hoc power calculations for hand path distance demonstrated the observed power for detecting a difference in hand path distance between 2 independent groups (DCD group [n=21] and TD group [n=17]) using the observed between-groups difference (Move=0.49, Kinect=0.36, Tab. 2) and averaged within-group standard deviation (Move=0.51, Kinect=0.53, Tab. 2) was 0.841 for Move and 0.549 for Kinect (Using PS Power and Sample Size Calculations, version 3.1.2, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee). Power estimates were for a main effect, not a group × game type interaction effect.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2.

Hand Path Measurements Collected From Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) and Children With Typical Development (TD) Playing Table Tennis Using Move and Kinect Active Virtual Reality Games (AVG)a

Differences between AVG types also were detected. Specifically, children's average hand path speed using Move was slower than when using Kinect (forehand MD=0.82 m/s; 95% CI=0.52, 1.12; P<.001; backhand MD=0.85 m/s; 95% CI=0.55, 1.14; P<.001; Tab. 2). This finding also was consistent for maximum speeds, showing slower maximum speeds on Move during forehand strokes (MD=1.79 m/s; 95% CI=1.22, 2.36; P<.001) and backhand strokes (MD=1.49 m/s; 95% CI=1.00, 1.98; P<.001). Using Move was associated with a significantly shorter hand path distance for forehand strokes (MD=0.45 m; 95% CI=0.26, 0.63; P<.001) and backhand strokes (MD=0.50 m; 95% CI=0.31, 0.69; P<.001), as illustrated in Figure 1. There were no group × AVG type interactions.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Hand path distance (mean ± standard deviation) during backhand strokes by children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and children with typical development (TD) using Move and Kinect active virtual reality games (AVG). Asterisk indicates significant differences between game types.

Wrist and Elbow Angle Variables

Overall, a significant difference between groups was found for maximum and minimum wrist angles during both forehand and backhand strokes (Tab. 3). The maximum wrist angle achieved was significantly different between groups, as the children with DCD played with significantly more wrist extension than the children with TD (forehand MD=34.3°; 95% CI=22.6, 47.0; P<.001; backhand MD=27.3°; 95% CI=13.8, 40.8; P<.001). Figure 2 presents the results for maximum wrist angle during forehands. These results were consistent for the minimum wrist angles (forehand MD=44.8°; 95% CI=29.4, 60.1; P<.001; backhand MD=34.6°; 95% CI=21.5, 47.7; P<.001), showing that children with DCD played table tennis on both consoles with significantly more wrist extension than children with TD (Tab. 3). Elbow angle results revealed that children with DCD utilized a significantly greater degree of maximum elbow flexion during forehand strokes (MD=2.3°; 95% CI=7.4, 37.1; P=.04) (Tab. 3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3.

Wrist and Elbow Angle (°) Measurements Collected From Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) and Children With Typical Development (TD) Playing Table Tennis Using Move and Kinect Active Virtual Reality Games (AVG)a

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Maximum wrist angle (°) (mean±standard deviation) achieved during forehand strokes by children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) and children with typical development (TD) using Move and Kinect active virtual reality games (AVG). Asterisk indicates significant differences between groups.

No significant differences between AVG types were found for any wrist angle variable (Tab. 3). For elbow angle variables, a significantly greater minimum degree of elbow flexion was utilized on Move during forehand strokes (MD=12.1°; 95% CI=4.1, 20.1; P=.04), and a significantly smaller range was utilized on Move during backhand strokes (MD=13.7°; 95% CI=6.4, 21.1; P=.001). No group × AVG type interactions were found.

Discussion

This study observed how children with DCD play a table tennis AVG on Move and Kinect compared with children with TD. We found several key differences in support of our primary and secondary hypotheses. Possible reasons for these differences are discussed below.

Differences Between Children With DCD and Children With TD

Analysis of hand path variables revealed that children with DCD achieved a significantly slower maximum hand speed than TD children during backhand strokes (1.20 m/s less). Reduced movement speed has previously been reported as a motor impairment in children with DCD during real-life tasks such as reach-to-grasp41; our study showed this finding also is true for AVG play.

The IMD theory would explain these differences as a result of impaired feedforward and feedback mechanisms and sensory integration.2 The IMD theory suggests that children with DCD do not plan movements adequately prior to movement execution and do not use sensory feedback to adjust movement patterns at the completion of the movement.8 Deficient feedback processes in children with DCD may be facilitated through the various feedback mechanisms that AVG offers.42 Cognitive feedback (through game success) along with auditory, visual, and tactile feedback (provided by the handheld wand on Move) may assist higher cortical functioning to aid motor learning in children with DCD.42 Additionally, Kinect features a motion replay function that may enhance feedback and could be prescribed in therapeutic home use of AVG.

Furthermore, it is possible that children with DCD chose to utilize slower speeds of movement to enhance task accuracy during AVG play. Despite the fact that accuracy was not specifically recorded in this study, Fitts' law suggests that slower speeds are utilized to achieve higher accuracy.43,44 This speed-accuracy trade-off principle is applicable to the general population43,44; however, movement accuracy may be compromised at an even slower speed in children with DCD given the numerous reported impairments of motor coordination.45 As therapists, this principle may be strategically used during AVG intervention. For example, if achieving movement accuracy is a treatment goal, task speed may be reduced initially. As a progression, once task accuracy improves, movement speed may be increased under supervision.

Our findings revealed that children with DCD utilized only a wrist extension range to achieve forehand and backhand strokes. This finding was different from that of children with TD, who utilized ranges of wrist flexion and extension. Children with DCD also demonstrated a significantly larger degree of peak elbow flexion during forehand strokes. Although we are unable to state the exact cause of these differences, these results support previous evidence that children with DCD minimize the degrees of freedom associated with task execution in order to increase task outcome success.46 Additionally, as suggested by previous studies, a reduced ability to integrate sensory information may have resulted in the use of abnormal movement patterns to achieve the functional goal.2,12 Altered joint kinematics are associated with changes in muscle activation at the joint of interest and at joints proximally and distally.47 For example, Yu et al47 showed that elbow extension was predominantly associated with activation of the middle and anterior deltoid and supraspinatus muscles, whereas in a position of 90 degrees of elbow flexion, the anterior deltoid and subscapularis muscles were the dominant contributors to shoulder abduction. Therefore, if a treatment goal is to facilitate muscle activation, it is important to consider how joints distally and proximally could be implicated. These findings highlight the need for therapists to observe joint angles and movement strategies utilized by children with DCD, as this can affect muscle activation and overall movement quality.

Differences Between PlayStation Move and Xbox Kinect

The findings of our study indicated several key differences between Move and Kinect. Forehand and backhand strokes on Move were performed at a slower speed (up to 0.85 m/s less during backhand strokes) and utilized a smaller hand path distance (up to 0.50 m less during backhand strokes) compared with Kinect. These differences were consistent for children with DCD and children with TD and may stem from technical differences between AVG types. The hands-free play that Kinect offers de-weights the upper limb, potentially allowing for a faster speed and greater path of hand movement, compared with Move where the player grips a handheld wand, potentially constraining the movement.48 Additionally, the representation of the table tennis task and characters on screen were different between Move and Kinect. One example of this difference was the use of first-person perspective during table tennis using the PlayStation Move Sports Champions game and third-person perspective during table tennis on Xbox Kinect Sports. The differences in player perspective and projection of images on screen may have influenced the visual feedback received from each table tennis AVG.42

Our study revealed no significant differences for wrist angle variables between AVG types, which was surprising given the technical differences between Move and Kinect. We anticipated a difference given the weight of the handheld Move wand. It is possible that the wand weight was accounted for by compensations at the elbow joint rather than the wrist. The findings revealed 2 significant elbow angle differences between AVG types: greater minimum elbow flexion was utilized on Move during forehand strokes (12.1° greater), and a smaller elbow range of movement was utilized on Move during backhand strokes (13.7° less). Although our findings highlight that table tennis on Move and Kinect utilized different movement patterns, it is unclear at this stage whether this finding was due to software or display game differences (eg, images on screen) or input control hardware differences (eg, presence of a handheld wand on Move). Therefore, when choosing an AVG type to address a movement quality goal, clinicians should be aware that AVG types are not necessarily interchangeable.

Limitations

Although our study contributed several key findings to understanding the movement patterns of children with DCD during AVG play, it had a number of limitations. A methodological limitation of our study was the use of a consistent order of tasks on Move then Kinect to minimize participant burden, which may have introduced an order effect. In addition, the sample size for our current study was based on matching the sample size from the RCT study.22 The original RCT study had been powered to detect a 5-point difference on MABC-2 total impairment score for children with DCD (within-subjects design).21 Our current mixed-model study, therefore, had less power. Although the results presented in Tables 2 and 3 do not suggest any group × AVG type interaction, a small interaction may exist and may not have been detected in the analyses.

Differences also may have existed between children with more or less marked motor impairment; however, small subgroup numbers precluded such analysis in this study. Additionally, only the movement patterns of an upper limb game were analyzed. Further research on lower limb and full body AVG tasks is needed to be able to comment on the applicability of our findings to other body areas. Furthermore, as only simple joint kinematics were analyzed, future research should consider complex measures (such as acceleration and movement jerkiness) given the reported deficiencies in these areas for children with DCD.2 No data regarding forehand and backhand stroke success were assessed; associations between movement quality and functional outcome during AVG play is an area that could be explored in further studies. Participant feedback was utilized during the warm-up period to discourage “cheating” that is possible by utilizing small rapid “shakes” of the Wii input device.26 Therefore, these data might not be a true representation of how some players might adapt their technique to achieve game success. Finally, our study findings suggest several differences between the movement patterns utilized on both AVG types. However, it is unclear what design elements in the AVG types contributed to these differences. Further examination of spatial and temporal accuracy requirements of each system could be explored to identify if these components are key design elements that contribute to movement fidelity during play.

In conclusion, the results of this novel study show several key differences in the movement quality of children with DCD compared with children with TD during AVG play. Such differences have implications for the use of AVG for intervention purposes. One intervention goal may be to gain task engagement, thereby enhancing participation in physical activity for physical and mental health reasons. Alternatively, the goal of treatment may be to practice good-quality movements to facilitate neuroplastic changes and enhance motor learning. Under these circumstances, therapists need to assess each child individually and decide which aspects of the movement quality are deficient and whether AVG play can address these deficiencies. Consideration should be given to whether movement quality is adequate for unsupervised practice using AVG. Finally, as different AVG types elicit different movement qualities, clinical judgment is required to decide which AVG type and game are preferable for facilitating the desired motor learning.

Footnotes

  • Ms Gonsalves, Dr Campbell, and Dr Straker provided concept/idea/study design and data collection. All authors provided writing and data analysis. Dr Straker provided project management, fund procurement, facilities/equipment, and institutional liaisons. Ms Jensen provided consultation (including review of the manuscript before submission). The authors thank the participating children and families, Paul Davey, and Deborah Metcalf for their assistance.

  • Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Numbers: HR11/2011 and PT215/2012).

  • The authors acknowledge the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for their funding (project #533526; NHMRC Fellowship #425513 and #APP1019980).

  • Received March 17, 2014.
  • Accepted October 2, 2014.
  • © 2015 American Physical Therapy Association

References

  1. ↵
    1. Barnhart RC,
    2. Davenport MJ,
    3. Epps SB,
    4. Nordquist VM
    . Developmental coordination disorder. Phys Ther. 2003;83:722–731.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Wilson PH,
    2. Ruddock S,
    3. Smits-Engelsman B,
    4. et al
    . Understanding performance deficits in developmental coordination disorder: a meta-analysis of recent research. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55:217–228.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Cousins M,
    2. Smyth MM
    . Developmental coordination impairments in adulthood. Hum Mov Sci. 2003;22:433–459.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Cermak A,
    2. Larkin D
    1. Cermak S,
    2. Gubbay S,
    3. Larkin D
    . What is developmental coordination disorder? In: Cermak A, Larkin D, eds. Developmental Coordination Disorder. Albany, NY: Delmar, a Division of Thomson Learning Inc; 2002:2–23.
  5. ↵
    1. Rosenblum S,
    2. Regev N
    . Timing abilities among children with developmental coordination disorders (DCD) in comparison to children with typical development. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34:218–227.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Kane K,
    2. Barden J
    . Frequency of anticipatory trunk muscle onsets in children with and without developmental coordination disorder. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2014;34:75–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Wu G,
    2. van der Helm FC,
    3. Veeger HE,
    4. et al
    . ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion, part II: shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech. 2005;38:981–992.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Williams J,
    2. Thomas PR,
    3. Maruff P,
    4. et al
    . Motor, visual and egocentric transformations in children with developmental coordination disorder. Child Care Health Dev. 2006;32:633–647.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Rivilis I,
    2. Hay J,
    3. Cairney J,
    4. et al
    . Physical activity and fitness in children with developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:894–910.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Hillier S
    . Intervention for children with developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review. Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. 2007;5:1–11.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Wilson PH
    . Practitioner review—approaches to assessment and treatment of children with DCD: an evaluative review. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005;46:806–823.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Zwicker JG,
    2. Missiuna C,
    3. Harris SR,
    4. Boyd LA
    . Developmental coordination disorder: a review and update. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2012;16:573–581.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Sugden D,
    2. Dunford C
    . Intervention and the role of theory, empiricism and experience in children with motor impairment. Disabil Rehabil. 2007;29:3–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Durkin K
    . Videogames and young people with developmental disorders. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010;14:122–140.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. ↵
    1. Olson C,
    2. Kutner L,
    3. Warner D,
    4. et al
    . Factors correlated with violent video game use by adolescent boys and girls. J Adolesc Health. 2007;41:77–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Burdea GC,
    2. Jain A,
    3. Rabin B,
    4. et al
    . Long-term hand tele-rehabilitation on the PlayStation 3: benefits and challenges. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:1835–1838.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Sandlund M,
    2. Waterworth EL,
    3. Hager C
    . Using motion interactive games to promote physical activity and enhance motor performance in children with cerebral palsy. Dev Neurorehabil. 2011;14:15–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Reinkensmeyer DJ,
    2. Boninger ML
    . Technologies and combination therapies for enhancing movement training for people with a disability. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2012;9:17.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. LeBlanc AG,
    2. Chaput JP,
    3. McFarlane A,
    4. et al
    . Active video games and health indicators in children and youth: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e65351.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Papastergiou M
    . Exploring the potential of computer and video games for health and physical education: a literature review. Computers & Education. 2009;53:603–622.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    1. Straker LM,
    2. Pollock C,
    3. Piek J,
    4. et al
    . Active-input provides more movement and muscle activity during electronic game playing by children. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 2009;25:713–728.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Straker LM,
    2. Abbott RA,
    3. Piek JP,
    4. et al
    . Rationale, design and methods for a randomised and controlled trial to investigate whether home access to electronic games decreases children's physical activity. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:212.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Levac DE,
    2. Miller PA
    . Integrating virtual reality video games into practice: clinicians' experiences. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013;29:504–512.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Jelsma D,
    2. Geuze RH,
    3. Mombarg R,
    4. Smits-Engelsman BC
    . The impact of Wii Fit intervention on dynamic balance control in children with probable developmental coordination disorder and balance problems. Hum Mov Sci. 2014;33:404–418.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Jelsma J,
    2. Pronk M,
    3. Ferguson G,
    4. Jelsma-Smit D
    . The effect of the Nintendo Wii Fit on balance control and gross motor function of children with spastic hemiplegic cerebral palsy. Dev Neurorehabil. 2013;16:27–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Levac D,
    2. Pierrynowski MR,
    3. Canestraro M,
    4. et al
    . Exploring children's movement characteristics during virtual reality video game play. Hum Mov Sci. 2010;29:1023–1038.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Brien M,
    2. Sveistrup H
    . An intensive virtual reality program improves functional balance and mobility of adolescents with cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2011;23:258–266.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Dorman SM
    . Video and computer games: effect on children and implications for health education. J Sch Health. 1997;67:133–138.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    1. Wuang YP,
    2. Chiang CS,
    3. Su CY,
    4. Wang CC
    . Effectiveness of virtual reality using Wii gaming technology in children with Down syndrome. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:312–321.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Bart O,
    2. Jarus T,
    3. Erez Y,
    4. Rosenberg L
    . How do young children with DCD participate and enjoy daily activities? Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:1317–1322.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About BMI for children and teens. 2011. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/childrens_bmi/about_childrens_bmi.html. Accessed October 9, 2013.
  32. ↵
    1. Henderson SE,
    2. Sugden DA,
    3. Barnett AL
    . Movement Assessment Battery for Children: Examiner's Manual. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: Pearson Assessment Inc; 2007.
  33. ↵
    1. Wilson B,
    2. Kaplan BJ,
    3. Crawford SG,
    4. Roberts G
    . The Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire 2007. Calgary, Canada: Alberta Children's Hospital Decision Support Research Team; 2007.
  34. ↵
    1. Blank R
    ; European Academy of Childhood Disability (EACD). Recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and intervention of developmental coordination disorder (pocket version). German-Swiss interdisciplinary clinical practice guideline S3-standard according to the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany. Pocket version. Definition, diagnosis, assessment, and intervention of developmental coordination disorder (DCD). Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54:e1–e7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Fery Y,
    2. Ponserre S
    . Enhancing the control of force in putting by golf video training. Ergonomics. 2001;44:1025–1037.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    1. Chang YJ,
    2. Chen SF,
    3. Huang JD
    . A Kinect-based system for physical rehabilitation: a pilot study for young adults with motor disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:2566–2570.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Ehara Y,
    2. Fujimoto H,
    3. Miyazaki S,
    4. et al
    . Comparison of the performance of 3D camera systems II. Gait Posture. 1997;5:251–255.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Woltring H
    . A Fortran package for generalized, cross-validatory spline smoothing and differentiation. Adv Eng Softw. 1986;8:104–113.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. ↵
    1. Lloyd DG,
    2. Alderson J,
    3. Elliott BC
    . An upper limb kinematic model for the examination of cricket bowling: a case study of Mutiah Muralitharan. J Sports Sci. 2000;18:975–982.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. De Lava P
    . Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov's segment inertia parameters. J Biomech. 1996;29:1223–1230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Biancotto M,
    2. Skabar A,
    3. Bulgheroni M,
    4. et al
    . Neuromotor deficits in developmental coordination disorder: evidence from a reach-to-grasp task. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:1293–1300.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Howcroft J,
    2. Klejman S,
    3. Fehlings D,
    4. et al
    . Active video game play in children with cerebral palsy: potential for physical activity promotion and rehabilitation therapies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:1448–1456.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Fitts PM
    . The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. 1954. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992;121:262–269.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Fitts PM,
    2. Peterson JR
    . Information capacity of discrete motor responses. J Exp Psychol. 1964;67:103–112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  45. ↵
    1. Wilson PH,
    2. Maruff P,
    3. Butson M,
    4. et al
    . Internal representation of movement in children with developmental coordination disorder: a mental rotation task. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2004;46:754–759.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    1. Utley A,
    2. Steenbergen B,
    3. Astill SL
    . Ball catching in children with developmental coordination disorder: control of degrees of freedom. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49:34–38.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Yu J,
    2. Ackland DC,
    3. Pandy MG
    . Shoulder muscle function depends on elbow joint position: an illustration of dynamic coupling in the upper limb. J Biomech. 2011;44:1859–1868.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    1. Zimba J
    1. Zimba J
    . Newton's second law. In: Zimba J. Force and Motion: An Illustrated Guide to Newton's Laws. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; 1969:247–265.
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 95 Issue 3 Table of Contents
Physical Therapy: 95 (3)

Issue highlights

  • Physical Therapist Interventions for Parkinson Disease
  • Effectiveness of Passive Physical Modalities for Shoulder Pain: Systematic Review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management Collaboration
  • Effectiveness of the Godelieve Denys-Struyf (GDS) Method in People With Low Back Pain: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Safety and Feasibility of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Pediatric Hemiparesis: Randomized Controlled Preliminary Study
  • Patients' Use of a Home-Based Virtual Reality System to Provide Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb Following Stroke
  • Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder Play Active Virtual Reality Games Differently Than Children With Typical Development
  • Grip Force Modulation Characteristics as a Marker for Clinical Disease Progression in Individuals With Parkinson Disease: Case-Control Study
  • Balance Training Using an iPhone Application in People With Familial Dysautonomia: Three Case Reports
  • Physical Therapy 2.0: Leveraging Social Media to Engage Patients in Rehabilitation and Health Promotion
  • Perspectives on the Evolution of Mobile (mHealth) Technologies and Application to Rehabilitation
  • Professionalism in a Digital Age: Opportunities and Considerations for Using Social Media in Health Care
  • Emergence of Virtual Reality as a Tool for Upper Limb Rehabilitation: Incorporation of Motor Control and Motor Learning Principles
  • “Kinect-ing” With Clinicians: A Knowledge Translation Resource to Support Decision Making About Video Game Use in Rehabilitation
  • Considerations in the Efficacy and Effectiveness of Virtual Reality Interventions for Stroke Rehabilitation: Moving the Field Forward
  • Interdisciplinary Concepts for Design and Implementation of Mixed Reality Interactive Neurorehabilitation Systems for Stroke
  • Role of Body-Worn Movement Monitor Technology for Balance and Gait Rehabilitation
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JCORE Reference.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder Play Active Virtual Reality Games Differently Than Children With Typical Development
(Your Name) has sent you a message from JCORE Reference
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the JCORE Reference web site.
Print
Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder Play Active Virtual Reality Games Differently Than Children With Typical Development
Leandra Gonsalves, Amity Campbell, Lynn Jensen, Leon Straker
Physical Therapy Mar 2015, 95 (3) 360-368; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140116

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Download Powerpoint
Save to my folders

Share
Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder Play Active Virtual Reality Games Differently Than Children With Typical Development
Leandra Gonsalves, Amity Campbell, Lynn Jensen, Leon Straker
Physical Therapy Mar 2015, 95 (3) 360-368; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20140116
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Method
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Subjects

Footer Menu 1

  • menu 1 item 1
  • menu 1 item 2
  • menu 1 item 3
  • menu 1 item 4

Footer Menu 2

  • menu 2 item 1
  • menu 2 item 2
  • menu 2 item 3
  • menu 2 item 4

Footer Menu 3

  • menu 3 item 1
  • menu 3 item 2
  • menu 3 item 3
  • menu 3 item 4

Footer Menu 4

  • menu 4 item 1
  • menu 4 item 2
  • menu 4 item 3
  • menu 4 item 4
footer second
footer first
Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
advertisement bottom
Advertisement Top