Complex visual information processing in children after mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual disturbances are often reported after Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). However, no studies have documented the presence of complex visuo-spatial information processing deficits in children after a mild TBI. It is important to assess children's visual perception after mild TBI to ensure a safer return to their activities and sports. The purpose of the present study was to compare the sensitivity to complex visual information processing of children who have sustained a mild TBI to that of non-injured children matched for age. Sensitivity to static and dynamic forms of simple (first-order) and complex (second-order) stimuli were assessed at 1 week post-injury for 12 injured children and controls (8 to 16 years of age). Orientation (vertical vs horizontal) and motion-direction identification (left vs right) thresholds were measured for all participants. In addition, sensitivity to local (simple) and global (complex) optic flow stimuli was assessed (coherence thresholds). Results indicate that at 1 week post-injury, the sensitivity to all complex stimuli (static and dynamic second-order and global motion) were significantly reduced for the mild TBI children whereas sensitivity to simple information remained within the normal range. Results from this study indicate that children with mild TBI present selective processing deficits for complex information 1 week post-injury. Such measures can be potentially used to complement existing diagnostic measures to assess the cognitive status of children who have sustained TBI. The persistence in time of this effect on performance is being studied until 12 weeks 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".