MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039056726 · doi:10.5014/ajot.63.5.535

Training Multitasking in a Virtual Supermarket: A Novel Intervention After Stroke

2009· article· en· W2039056726 on OpenAlexaff
Debbie Rand, Patrice L. Weiss, Noomi Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman multitaskingIntervention (counseling)Physical medicine and rehabilitationStroke (engine)Training (meteorology)PsychologyPhysical therapyApplied psychologyComputer scienceMedicineCognitive psychologyPsychiatryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential of the VMall, a virtual supermarket running on a video-capture virtual reality system, as an intervention tool for people who have multitasking deficits after stroke. METHOD: Poststroke, 4 participants received ten 60-min sessions over 3 weeks using the VMall. The intervention focused on improving multitasking while the participant was engaged in a virtual shopping task. Instruments included the Multiple Errands Test-Hospital Version (MET-HV) in a real mall and in the VMall. RESULTS: Participants achieved improvements ranging from 20.5% to 51.2% for most of the MET-HV measures performed in a real shopping mall and in the VMall. CONCLUSIONS: The data support the VMall's potential as a motivating and effective intervention tool for the rehabilitation of people poststroke who have multitasking deficits during the performance of daily tasks. However, because the sample was small, additional intervention studies with the VMall should be conducted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations108
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207