MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Humans With Traumatic Brain Injuries Show Place-Learning Deficits in Computer-Generated Virtual Space

2000· article· en· W2015555765 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald W. Skelton, Cindy M. Bukach, Holly E. Laurance, Kevin G. F. Thomas, Jake W. Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTraumatic brain injuryTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyWater mazeHippocampusAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial learning and memory has been linked to the hippocampus and temporal lobes and though these areas are often damaged in traumatic brain injury (TBI), spatial learning deficits after TBI have not received much attention. In the present study, a virtual environment was used to challenge people with TBI to solve a task comparable to the Morris water maze, which in turn has been shown to be highly sensitive to hippocampal and frontal lobe dysfunction in laboratory animals. A regular computer monitor was used to present 12 participants with TBI and 12 age- and sex-matched comparison participants with a computer-generated, three-dimensional "virtual arena maze," consisting of a large round arena within a very large square room. Participants were required to learn the place of an invisible target on the floor of the room based solely on distal cues on the walls of the room. Eight of the 12 participants with moderate to severe TBI showed substantial place-learning deficits in comparison to the uninjured participants. Performance in the virtual environment correlated with self-reported frequency of wayfinding problems in everyday life and with scores on a test of episodic memory, the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Task. These data confirm that deficits in spatial learning and memory follow TBI, and suggest that the virtual arena maze may provide a new method for objectively assessing them.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations112
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207