Attention following traumatic brain injury: Neuropsychological and driving simulator data, and association with sleep, sleepiness, and fatigue
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to compare individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and healthy controls on neuropsychological tests of attention and driving simulation performance, and explore their relationships with participants' characteristics, sleep, sleepiness, and fatigue. Participants were 22 adults with moderate or severe TBI (time since injury ≥ one year) and 22 matched controls. They completed three neuropsychological tests of attention, a driving simulator task, night-time polysomnographic recordings, and subjective ratings of sleepiness and fatigue. Results showed that participants with TBI exhibited poorer performance compared to controls on measures tapping speed of information processing and sustained attention, but not on selective attention measures. On the driving simulator task, a greater variability of the vehicle lateral position was observed in the TBI group. Poorer performance on specific subsets of neuropsychological variables was associated with poorer sleep continuity in the TBI group, and with a greater increase in subjective sleepiness in both groups. No significant relationship was found between cognitive performance and fatigue. These findings add to the existing evidence that speed of information processing is still impaired several years after moderate to severe TBI. Sustained attention could also be compromised. Attention seems to be associated with sleep continuity and daytime sleepiness; this interaction needs to be explored further.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it