MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037069982 · doi:10.1076/jcen.25.6.783.16476

Sensory Temporal Thresholds and Interhemispheric Transfer Times in Multiple Sclerosis: A Preliminary Study of a New Outcome Measure

2003· article· en· W2037069982 on OpenAlexaff
Lenora N. Brown, Luanne M. Metz, Robert S. Sainsbury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySensory systemAudiologySensory thresholdNeuroscienceSensationSensory stimulation therapyMultiple sclerosisStimulationCognitive psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This preliminary study investigated the potential of a cerebral lateralization technique that measures both, temporal judgements to sensory stimuli and interhemispheric transfer time (IHTT), as an outcome measure in multiple sclerosis (MS). Tactile stimulation was delivered to one or both hands by mechanical tactile stimulators. Pairs of light emitting diodes were presented to hemifields for visual stimulation. Response consisted of a binary forced-choice (YES/NO) judgement as to the simultaneity of the onset of pairs of stimuli. Both tactile and visual temporal thresholds were significantly higher in MS patients than controls in every presentation condition. IHTT estimates (threshold differences between unilateral and bilateral presentations) for the tactile and visual tasks were also significantly longer in patients than controls. Age correlated with sensory temporal thresholds for the control group only. These findings suggest that this technique may be a useful outcome measure in MS. We hypothesize that myelin injury slows central conduction therefore impairing the ability to judge the onset of sensory stimuli and increasing IHTTs.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.399
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.001 · 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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Experimental NeuropsychologySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207