Social behaviour following severe traumatic brain injury: Contribution of emotion perception deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This theoretically driven study aimed to determine contribution of emotional perception impairments to social behaviour following traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Adults with severe TBI (n = 24) participated. Emotion perception predictors included: (i) appraisal: Montreal Set of Facial Displays of Emotion, The Adapted Story Task, (ii) affective state: Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21), Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) and (iii) regulation: Delis Kaplan Executive Function System - Colour Word Interference and Word Fluency. Social behavioural outcomes were (i) interpersonal: Key Behaviors Change Inventory (KBCI) - Interpersonal Difficulties and (ii) communication: KBCI - Communication Problems. RESULTS: Social behaviours correlated with affective state, but not appraisal or regulation. Simultaneous regression analyses revealed significant independent contributions of affective state: (i) the IRI Perspective Taking to the KBCI Interpersonal Difficulties and (ii) the DASS-21 (composite) and IRI Perspective Taking to the KBCI Communication Problems. The models explained 52% and 72% of the variance of the KBCI Interpersonal Difficulties and Communication Problems respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that impairments in certain aspects of emotion perception: affective state [empathy (perspective taking) and mood], but not appraisal and regulation, contribute to social behaviour difficulties in patients with severe TBI, which has important implications for rehabilitation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".