Mild traumatic brain injury and its sequelae: Characterisation of divided attention deficits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficits in divided attention occur after a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) but many extant tasks lack sensitivity for detecting subtle cognitive difficulties. We use the Test d'Attention Partagee Informatise (TAPI), a novel dual-task paradigm, to investigate the impact of MTBI on the ability to divide attention between two stimuli sources. Individuals with MTBI (n=37) were evaluated within the first week following head trauma and at three months post-injury. A healthy control (HC) group (n=79) was also assessed. The primary outcome was reaction time and there were three different conditions that included visual target detection and auditory digit span tasks. Analyses utilised repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA models that adjusted for relevant variables including post-concussive and affective symptoms. Results indicated that at both baseline and follow-up, the MTBI group had significantly slower reaction time than the HC group. Also, both the MTBI and HC groups had slower reaction times as participants progressed through each of the more challenging TAPI conditions. This study supports the usefulness of this novel instrument and allows clinicians and researchers to assess for subtle divided attention deficits that may persist in those with MTBI even three months post-injury.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it