Development of kinesthetic and spatial basis of movement in urban and rural populations

Introduction. The child’s sensorimotor system is currently considered as a dynamic self-organizing system formed under the influence of both external and internal factors. This opens up broad opportunities for studying the developmental features of various components of motor function in childhood under different environmental conditions. In the structure of voluntary movement, the kinesthetic and spatial factors and their role in the formation of movements and actions in ontogenesis are of great interest, depending on the child’s population and the influence of the environment. In recent years, material has been accumulated indicating differences in the cognitive development of some features of the brain organization in urban and rural children.

The aim. To study the development features of kinesthetic and spatial praxis in urban and rural populations of children.

Materials and methods. The study included 1362 urban and 891 rural children aged 4–10 years were examined, including 1045 boys and 1208 girls. The state of motor function was studied as part of a comprehensive screening neuropsychological examination. Standard procedures for using tests for kinesthetic and spatial organization of movements were used: Finger Position Test and Head’sTest.

Results. The features of development of kinesthetic and spatial factors of movement organization in populations of urban and rural children were revealed. At the same time, an advantage in development of kinesthetic and spatial components of motor function was revealed in rural children, where their formation was distinguished by greater stability and intensity than in the urban population.

Conclusion. The active process of formation of kinesthetic and spatial organization of movements within the studied age period ended earlier in the rural population than in the population of urban children.

1. Deco G, Perl YS, Ponce-Alvarez A, Tagliazucchi E, Whybrow PC, Fuster JM, et al. One ring to rule them all: The unifying role of prefrontal cortex in steering task-related brain dynamics. Prog Neurobiol. 2023; 227: 102468. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2023.102468

2. Albert S, Shadmer R. The cerebellum learns to predict the physics of our movements. In: Linden DJ. (ed.) Brain Trust. 40 leading neuroscientists on what we know and don’t know about the brain. Moscow: Sindbad; 2021; 258-261. (In Russ.).

3. Roland PE. Dynamic depolarization fields in the cerebral cortex. Trends Neurosci. 2002; 25(4): 183-90. doi: 10.1016/s0166-2236(00)02125-1

4. Stepniewska I, Gharbawie OA, Burish MJ, Kaas JH. Effects of muscimolinactivations of functional domains in motor, premotor, and posterior parietal cortex on complex movements evoked by electrical stimulation. J Neurophysiol. 2014; 111(5): 1100-1119. doi: 10.1152/jn.00491.2013

5. Leonova SV, Lukyanova IE. The state of hand-eye coordination in the process of mastering the graphic skills of first graders with a minimum disarticulate disorders. Child and adolescent rehabilitation. 2018; 4(36): 53-56. (In Russ.).

6. Obnosov VN. The infl e of motorics on general mental development and methods of motorics development in early childhood. Science and Education. 2021; 4(3): 19. (In Russ.).

7. Bugun OV, Mashanskaya AV, Atalyan AV, Mikhnovich VI, Belogorova TA, Vlasenko AV, et al. Comprehensive rehabilitation of patients with movement disorders with spastic forms of cerebral palsy. Acta biomedica scientifica. 2021; 6(6-2): 82-91. (In Russ.). doi: 10.29413/ABS.2021-6.6-2.9

8. Polyakov VM, Dolgikh VV, Kolesnikova LI, Rychkova LV. Peculiarities of ontogenesis of brain functional systems in urban and village children. International journal of psychophysiology. 2008; 69(3): 297-298. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.05.288

9. Dolgikh VV, Rychkova LV, Mandzyak TV. State of health of children’s population in connection with the combined influence of environmental factors. Current Pediatrics. 2005; 4(S1): 154. (In Russ.).

10. Astakhova TA, Rychkova LV, Pogodina AV, Mandzyak TV, Klimkina YuN. Comparative analysis of health status of adolescents of different ethnic groups in Buryat Republic. Ekologiya cheloveka [Human Ecology. 2017; 6: 2429. (In Russ.). doi: 10.33396/1728-0869-2017-6-24-29

11. Shalkevich LV, Ivashina EN, Kudlatch AI. Coordination in children: value of violations definition and identification methods. Healthcare. 2020; 1: 34-41. (In Russ.).

12. Glozman ZhM. Neuropsychological examination: qualitative and quantitative assessment of data. Moscow: Smysl, 2019. (In Russ.).

13. Fotekova TA. The role of environmental factors in the formation of higher mental functions in preschool and primary school age. Abakan: “Book Publishing House “Brigantina” Ltd.; 2015. (In Russ.).

14. Khokhlov NA, Koviazina MS, Cherkasova AN, Salikhyanova NR. The trial of reciprocal hand coordination: Testing of a quantitative modification of the technique. Question of psychology. 2016; 6: 141-149. (In Russ.).

15. Yablokova LV. Neuropsychological diagnostics of development of higher mental functions in primary school children. Candidate’s dissertation. Moscow; 1998. (In Russ.).

16. Korsakova NK, Mikadze YuV, Balashova EYu. Underachieving children: neuropsychological diagnostics of learning difficulties in primary school students. Moscow: Yurait. 2025. (In Russ.).

17. Kuzeva ОV, Romanova АА, Korneev АА, Akhutina ТV. Dynamics of programming and control, and serial organization of movements as the basic components of handwriting (based on grafomotor test). Psychological Science and Education. 2015; 20(1): 85-101. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17759/pse.2015200110

18. [Bukinich AM, Korneev AA, Matveeva EYu, Akhutina TV, Gusev AN, Kremlev AE. Structural analysis of the neuropsychological data for 6-9-year-old children. Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2022; 18(2): 21-31. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17759/chp.2022180203

19. Polyakov VM. Development of higher mental processes in urban and rural children. Cultural-Historical Psychology. 2008; 4(1): 9-16. (In Russ.).

20. Zhirkova AV. Development of control over the behavior of younger schoolchildren with different socio-cultural affiliation. Experimental psychology. 2020; 13(1): 79-90. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17759/exppsy.2020130106

21. Hermida MJ, Shalom DE, Segretin MS, Goldin AP, Abril MC, Lipina SJ, et al. Risks for child cognitive development in rural contexts. Front. Psychol. 2019; 9: 2735. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02735

22. Freitas LL, Cardoso TSG, Argollo N, Mello CB. Socioeconomic status, urbanization and executive functions development: differences between urban and rural children. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa. 2022; 38: e38220. doi: 10.1590/0102.3772e38220.en

23. Jasinska KK, Zinszer BD, Xu Z, Hannon J, Seri AB, Tanoh F, et al. Home learning environment and physical development impact children’s executive function development and literacy in rural Côte d’Ivoire. Cognitive Development. 2022; 64: 101265. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101265

24. Kühn S, Banaschewski T, Bokde ALW, Büchel C, Quinlan EB, Desrivieres S, et al. Brain structure and habitat: Do the brains of our children tell us where they have been brought up? NeuroImage. 2020; 222: 117225. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117225

25. Besteher B, Gaser Ch, Spalthoff R, Nenadic I. Associations between urban upbringing and cortical thickness and gyrification. Journal of psychiatric research. 2017; 95: 114-120. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.08.012

26. Zhang X, Zhang Y, Yan H, Yu H, Zhang D, Mattay VS, et al. Childhood urbanicity is associated with emotional episodic memory-related striatal function and common variation in NTRK2. BMC Med. 2024; 22(1): 146. doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03365-4

27. Akhutina TV. (Ed.). Methods of neuropsychological examination of children 6-9 years old. M.: Publ. V. Sekachev, 2017. (In Russ.).

28. Semenova NB. Characteristics of cognitive functions in Tuvan children: ethnic and territorial differences. Question of psychology. 2015; 6: 18-27. (In Russ).