Phenotypic and Genetic Associations Between Preschool Fine Motor Skills and Later Neurodevelopment, Psychopathology, and Educational Achievement

Language and motor plasticity in toddlerhood and early preschool as predictors of intelligence in late preschool

BACKGROUND

Early language and motor development may influence cognitive function in a cascading manner later in life. This study aimed to explore the impact of language and motor plasticity during toddlerhood and early preschool years on intelligence in late preschool, with an additional consideration of the influence of ASD and ADHD diagnoses.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected medical chart from 423 children aged 2-5 years (316 boys and 107 girls; mean age at Time 1: 3.49 ± 0.98 years), who participated in an early intervention program at a medical center in Northern Taiwan. Language and motor development along with demographic information were assessed during the initial evaluation (Time 1). These assessments were repeated, and intelligence was measured at the follow-up (Time 2). A generalized linear model was used for the data analysis.

RESULTS

Receptive language developmental change was the strongest predictor of lower intelligence quotient (IQ) scores, followed by gross, expressive language, and fine motor developmental changes (all p < 0.01). Children with catch-up receptive or expressive language or gross or fine motor development had better IQ outcomes than those with persistent delay (all p < 0.001). There were no ASD-by-developmental type or ADHD-by-developmental type interactions predicting IQ.

CONCLUSIONS

Better plasticity in language and motor abilities during toddlerhood and early pre-school years was associated with better intelligence in the late pre-school years. The importance of early and effective interventions for language and motor development has been highlighted.

Embodied Cognition and the Structure of Personality: An Exploratory Study of Longitudinal Pathways From Early Psychomotor Function

OBJECTIVE

To explore the developmental pathways linking infant psychomotor function with personality in late adolescence through cognitive, social, and self-regulation skills. The broader research question, seen through the lens of embodied cognition, is whether cognition and personality in youth develop from basic sensorimotor and communicative systems in infancy.

METHOD

The sample included 9202 participants from a representative UK birth cohort. A structural equation model examined the prospective associations between motor and communicative functions at age 9 months, cognition, self-regulation, and prosociality at 5 years, and the five-factor model of personality at 17 years. The associations between psychomotor function and the meta-traits of stability and plasticity were also explored.

RESULTS

Even after controlling for confounders and correcting for multiple paths, there was robust evidence that psychomotor development significantly predicts personality structure, with indirect pathways mediated by self-regulation skills and general or social cognitive skills in middle childhood. While infant communicative function was significantly associated with both meta-traits, gross motor function was significantly associated with plasticity but not stability.

CONCLUSIONS

Early psychomotor function may have long-term effects on personality, mediated by cognitive, social, and self-regulation skills. This finding can inform the development of socio-educational interventions and tailored curricula in early childhood education.

Editorial: Are government early years learning and development frameworks evidence-based? A scientist's perspective

Not all young children attend nurseries, childminders or other group settings before they start school, but many do. It is common for countries to set out a framework to guide practice for early years providers (such as nurseries) to follow. The conundrum regarding these frameworks for young children is that proving evidence of a causal link between early environments and later outcomes is very challenging scientifically. So how do governments choose what learning and development practices and goals to make mandatory for childcare providers? And is it realistic to expect early years providers to meet the legal requirements that these frameworks impose? We do not know which learning and development practices impact positively on later outcomes, and we certainly do not know if there is a one-size-fits-all approach for an early years framework that is guaranteed to work.