This commentary is on the original article by Einspieler et al. on pages 361–368 of this issue. Parents of infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) are understandably concerned with their infant's development. As survival has markedly improved over the last two decades, the focus of health professionals has shifted to decreasing morbidity and improving neurodevelopmental outcomes. However, predicting development is challenging at an early age. Whilst traditional neurological assessments provide a profile of the neurological status of the infant, they often require prolonged handling that can be poorly tolerated by infants in the NICU and are less valuable in the accurate prediction of neurodevelopmental outcomes when performed before term age.1 The General Movements Trust has, for many decades, been a leader in attempting to predict outcome in an objective way. We know that the general movement assessment (GMA) is a validated non-invasive method to observe infants' spontaneous movements and is clinically feasible to use in a wide variety of infant populations: from extremely preterm infants to term infants recovering from major surgical procedures.2 The GMA, traditionally implemented in Europe, is gaining momentum in other countries, including Australia, with increasing numbers of certification courses run on a regular basis by the General Movements Trust. Repeated studies have shown the GMA to be predictive of later neurological outcome, particularly cerebral palsy (CP),3 with sensitivity and specificity rates that surpass those of traditional neurological assessment or magnetic resonance imaging.1 This data from Einspieler et al.4 adds to this knowledge by applying an important concept, namely optimality. The majority of studies that report on the GMA, use the global assessment categories when describing the quality of general movements; however, this study investigates and describes writhing general movements in more detail. Through further analysis and scoring of components such as amplitude, speed, and spatial range, a semi-quantification of the quality of movement can be achieved. By applying this to a large number of infants across varying preterm and term ages, the authors have been able to provide a rich description of movement characteristics within each global general movement category in the writhing period. This has particular significance for less experienced clinicians and could be used both as a complement to formal training, and in the clinical setting to improve reliability in GMA interpretation. Previous studies on the use of optimality scoring by this group and others have not been able to enhance the prediction of long-term outcome from that of the global GMA scores.5 However, the optimality score may have potential as a method to evaluate subtle change following early therapeutic interventions. Whilst more research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of early neonatal interventions such as providing an enriched environment or supporting infants through painful procedures, the use of assessments that allow the evaluation of these interventions is a step in the right direction. For parents, the GMA provides a chance for early intervention in infants considered ‘at risk’, rather than waiting for milestones to go unmet, or a formal label to be given. For conditions such as CP this is vital, as it allows the commencement of intensive early intervention, with promising research underway into goal and activity-based learning occurring within an enriched environment.6 Assessment tools with good predictive ability are of utmost importance within the clinical setting to identify infants at risk of poor neurodevelopmental outcomes and who may benefit from neuroregenerative therapies and targeted early intervention at the time of maximal neuroplasticity. The GMA is one such extremely promising tool. More studies are needed to investigate the application of detailed GMA using the optimality score across a wide range of infant populations and to determine the benefit in enhancing prediction of outcome. Important steps in the field of neonatology now are for more clinicians to complete the standardized training and certification process for the GMA, as a complement to existing neonatal assessment methods, and for the GMA to be routinely incorporated into infant follow-up.