Assessment & Research

Differences between late preterm and full-term infants: comparing effects of a short bout of practice on early reaching behavior.

de Almeida Soares et al. (2014) · Research in developmental disabilities 2014
★ The Verdict

One quick reach session is only a warm-up—late preterm babies need weeks of daily toy play to catch up.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running early-intervention clinics or NICU follow-up programs.
✗ Skip if Practitioners who only treat school-age kids with no motor delays.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Daniele and team watched late preterm and full-term babies reach for a toy.

Each baby got one four-minute practice round while cameras tracked arm moves.

The goal was to see if a quick bout of practice could close the motor gap.

02

What they found

After the short session the preterm babies moved their arms faster toward the toy.

Still, they lagged behind full-term peers in fine finger control and grasping.

One shot of practice helped a little, but it did not erase the difference.

03

How this fits with other research

Soloveichick et al. (2020) took the idea further. They gave very preterm infants ten to twelve weeks of gentle limb-movement imitation. All four babies in their case series later showed normal preschool development.

The longer dose worked for the highest-risk babies, showing that minutes are not enough.

Boutot et al. (2018) also used a single toy trick. They turned on a preferred toy to lift the head of a baby with Down syndrome during tummy time. One session helped, matching Daniele’s short-term gain.

Together the papers say: brief toy play gives a small boost, but sustained practice changes the trajectory.

04

Why it matters

If you coach preterm babies in NICU follow-up, do not stop at one demo. Schedule daily short reaching games and track finger grasps across weeks. Build parent routines so practice piles up; that is where the real gap closes.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add a second four-minute toy reach bout to the session and teach parents to repeat it at home today.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
quasi experimental
Sample size
24
Population
neurotypical
Finding
mixed
Magnitude
small

03Original abstract

This study compared the effects of a short bout of practice on reaching behavior between late preterm and full-term infants at the onset of goal-directed reaching. Twelve late preterm infants and twelve full-term infants received reaching practice based on a serial schedule. Late preterm and full-term infants were assessed in 3.3±1.4 and 2.6±1.0 days after the onset of goal-directed reaching in two measures in a single day: immediately before practice (pre-test) and immediately after practice (post-test). During the assessments, the infants were placed in a baby chair and a rubber toy was presented at their midline within reaching distance for 2 min. Between assessments, the infants received practice of toy-oriented reaching in 3 activities repeated for approximately 4 min. The activities were elicited in a pre-established serial sequence and were applied by a physical therapist. During the pre-test, late preterm infants presented lower range of proximal adjustments, greater proportion of reaches with semi-open hand, and greater proportion of reaches without grasping than the full-term infants. During the post-test, late preterm infants presented greater motor variability of proximal adjustments, but explored and selected distal control and grasping outcomes less compared to the full-term group. Differences in reaching and gross motor behavior between late preterm and full-term infants can be found at the age of reaching onset. Practice provided new opportunities for late preterm infants to improve perception-action coupling to reach; however, relative to full-terms, they seemed less advanced in benefiting from the experience for more refined manual tasks.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2014 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.041