Towards a physiological signal-based access solution for a non-verbal adolescent with severe and multiple disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To find physiologically arousing stimuli and labile physiological channels in a non-verbal adolescent with severe and multiple congenital disabilities, who did not have a reliable means of communication. METHODS: The client was repeatedly presented with visual and audiovisual stimuli, representing variations of six contextual factors over three sessions in a one month period. For each stimulus, reactions were detected in the client's four peripheral autonomic nervous system signals using a rule-based classification algorithm. RESULTS: During the presentation of audiovisual stimuli, the number of physiological reactions significantly differed from that observed in baseline (χ(2) = 3.93, p = 0.0476). Aural stimuli articulated in an unfamiliar voice, and aural stimuli containing anticipatory patterns were also physiologically arousing. Fingertip temperature was the client's most labile physiological signal. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this case study suggest that physiological data may complement caregiver acumen in deciphering the reactions of non-verbal clients with severe and multiple disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".