Contribuição à neuropsicologia do comportamento executivo: Torre de Londres e teste de Wisconsin em indivíduos normais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of "executive behavior" encompasses a set of abilities which are critical for the organization of thought and behavior. To test the hypothesis that executive behavior is composed of multiple modules we investigated the performance of 61 normal adults on two widely used executive tasks, the Wisconsin Card Sorting (WCST) and the Tower of London (TOL) tests. We hypothesized that if executive behavior were composed of multiple modules, the main dimensions of each task would be weakly, if at all, statistically related. We also tested the hypothesis that occupational functioning would be related to executive performance. Our results revealed no significant association between the WCST and TOL tasks, favoring the idea that executive behavior is made up of multiple neuropsychological dimensions. Secondly, men fared significantly better than women on the difficult (4 and 5-moves) TOL puzzles. Finally, there was a significant association between performance on the difficult TOL puzzles and level of occupational functioning. These findings may explain certain dissociations in executive behavior commonly observed in patients with focal or diffuse brain damage. If replicated, they might be useful in the prediction of success in cognitive rehabilitation programs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".