The study demonstrated great promise in creating a health-conducive environment that positively impacts weight and gross motor skill development in children at risk for obesity. Program efficacy should be tested in a randomized trial.

Background: Early childhood is a formative period for many weight-related behaviors (diet and activity), but little obesity prevention research targeting this age group has been conducted. Early care and education settings are a useful avenue for interventions targeting young children, but the limited research provides insufficient evidence upon which to base policy decisions, practice guidelines, or mobilized efforts to improve healthy eating and physical activity, and ultimately healthy weight development in these settings.Methods: In September of 2011, prominent researchers, young investigators, and leaders in early care and education came together to examine past research and to explore challenges and priorities for future research on healthy weight development in children aged 2-5 years. During this meeting, experts presented and attendees discussed key issues around measurement of diet and physical activity, policy and environment measurement, intervention approaches, policy research, and capacity development. Following the meeting, attendees were invited to participate in an online voting exercise to select top research priorities.Results: A total of 64 research issues were identified, and voting narrowed this list to 24 issues. Highest-rated issues included: Assessment of the quality of children's meals and snacks, use of financial incentives, interventions that include healthcare providers, the role of screen time, and need for multilevel interventions.Conclusions: The presentations within this meeting highlighted the importance of research to address the unique challenges for those working in early care and education settings. Expert and stakeholder consensus of priorities identified significant and innovative areas where future obesity prevention research efforts should be focused.

Recent research on bilateral transfer suggests that imagery training can facilitate the transfer of motor skill from a trained limb to that of an untrained limb above and beyond that of physical practice. To further explore this effect, the present study examined the influence of practice duration and task difficulty on the extent to which imagery training and physical training influences bilateral transfer of a sequential key pressing task. In experiment 1, participants trained on the key pressing task using their non-dominant arm under one of three conditions (physical practice, imagery practice, and no practice). In a subsequent bilateral transfer test, participants performed the sequential task using their untrained dominant arm in either an original order or mirror-ordered sequence. In experiment 2, the same procedures were followed as in experiment 1 except that participants trained with their dominant arm and performed the bilateral transfer task with their non-dominant arm. Results indicated that with extended practice beyond what has been employed in previous studies, physical practice is more effective at facilitating bilateral transfer compared to training with imagery. Interestingly, significant bilateral transfer was only observed for transfer from the non-dominant to the dominant arm with no differences observed between performing the task in an original or mirror ordered sequence. Overall, these findings suggest that imagery training may benefit bilateral transfer primarily at the initial stages of learning, but with extended training, physical practice leads to larger influences on transfer.

The tendency to overestimate has consistently been reported in studies of reachability estimation. According to one of the more prominent explanations, the postural stability hypothesis, the perceived reaching limit depends on the individual's perceived postural constraints. To test that proposition, the authors compared estimates of reachability of 38 adults (a) in the seated posture (P1) and (b) in the more demanding posture of standing on one foot and leaning forward (P2). Although there was no difference between conditions for total error, results for the distribution and direction of error indicated that participants overestimated in the P1 condition and underestimated in the P2 condition. It therefore appears that perceived postural constraints could be a factor in judgments of reachability. When participants in the present study perceived greater postural demands, they may have elected to program a more conservative strategy that resulted in underestimation.

No abstract