MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1935814032 · doi:10.1080/13803395.2015.1038981

Remembering your past: The effects of concussion on autobiographical memory recall

2015· article· en· W1935814032 on OpenAlexaff
Nicole Barry, Jennifer L. Tomes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutobiographical memoryRecallConcussionPsychologyCognitive psychologyCognitionEpisodic memoryFree recallMemory errorsReconstructive memoryChildhood memoryDevelopmental psychologyPoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, research focusing on long-term memory functioning post concussion is limited. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the effects of concussion on long-term episodic autobiographical memory, once acute postconcussive symptoms have abated. Individuals with and without a history of concussion were asked to recall autobiographical memories from different life periods. The details, self-reported vividness, ease of recall, and completeness of these memories were assessed. Results indicated that although both control and previously concussed participants were equally able to recall autobiographical memories from all life periods, the transcribed memories of previously concussed participants were less detailed, were less complex, and revealed less active involvement in recollection. Specifically, memories of control participants contained more words and a higher proportion of pronouns, personal pronouns, cognitive process words, perceptual process words, and past-tense words. Deficits were found regardless of the frequency or recency of concussion. Concussion information, limitations, and implications of the current findings are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207