4.5 Article

Adaptations of the Walking Corsi Test (WalCT) for 2-and 3-year-old preterm and term-born toddlers: A preliminary study

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1081042

关键词

spatial navigation; child development; selective attention; locomotion; premature infant; toodler

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to determine whether adapted versions of the Walking Corsi Test (WalCT) can be used to test topographical memory in 2- and 3-year-old toddlers born at term and preterm. The results showed that both versions of the test were suitable for early ages and prematurity conditions, but the preterm group had lower performance.
IntroductionTopographical memory is crucial for navigation and environmental representation. The Walking Corsi Test (WalCT) has been used to evaluate topographical memory in children from 4 years upward. The present study aims to determine whether adapted versions of the WalCT- by simplifying instructions and increasing motivation- can be adopted to test topographical memory in 2- and 3-year-old toddlers born at term and preterm. Assessing this skill in such young children is important in light of recent studies that have shown how spatial cognition underlies the development of skills in other cognitive domains as well. Methods: For this purpose, 47 toddlers (27.39 +/- 4.34 months, 38.3% females), 20 born at term and 27 preterm, performed two aimed-designed versions of WalCT.ResultsThe results showed better performance of the term groups with increasing age and for both versions. On the other hand, performance was better in 2-year-old term toddlers vs. preterm. When rising motivation, 2-year-old preterm toddlers improve their performance but differences between both groups were still significant. The preterm group showed lower performance related to lower levels of attention.DiscussionThis study provides preliminary data on the suitability of the adapted versions of WalCT in early ages and prematurity conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据