MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055469697 · doi:10.3109/02699052.2011.580312

Mild head injury and sympathetic arousal: Investigating relationships with decision-making and neuropsychological performance in university students

2011· article· en· W2055469697 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefon van Noordt, Dawn Good

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Injury · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersOntario Neurotrauma Foundation
KeywordsIowa gambling taskNeuropsychologyPsychologyArousalCognitionClinical psychologyHead injuryFluencyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between neuropsychological performance, physiological arousal and decision-making in university students who have or have not reported a history of mild head injury (MHI). METHODS: Forty-four students, 18 (41%) reporting a history of MHI, performed a design fluency task and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) while electrodermal activity (EDA) was recorded. RESULTS: General cognitive ability and overall choice outcomes did not differ between groups. However, self-reported MHI severity predicted decision-making performance such that the greater the neural indices of trauma, the more disadvantageous the choices made by participants. As expected, both groups exhibited similar base levels of autonomic arousal and physiological responses to reward and punishment outcomes; however, those reporting MHI produced significantly lower levels of EDA during the anticipatory stages of decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings encourage the acceptance of head injury as being on a continuum of brain injury severity, as MHI can emulate neurophysiological and neuropsychological features of more traumatic cases and may be impacting mechanisms which sustain adaptive social decision-making.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain InjurySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207