Driving Rehabilitation for Military Personnel Recovering From Traumatic Brain Injury Using Virtual Reality Driving Simulation: A Feasibility Study
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
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of virtual reality driving simulation rehabilitation training (VRDSRT) with military personnel recovering from traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Eleven men with TBI were randomly assigned as controls (n = 5) receiving residential rehabilitation only or the VRDSRT group (n = 6) receiving residential rehabilitation and VRDSRT. All subjects underwent pre- and post-assessments including simulator driving, and completing road rage and risky driving questionnaires. Between assessments, VRDSRT subjects received 4-6, 60- to 90-min rehabilitation training sessions involving practicing progressively more complex driving skills (lane position, speed control, etc.) through progressively more demanding traffic. RESULTS: VRDSRT was well received, considered realistic and effective, with no reported simulation sickness. Driving performance improved significantly in the VRDSRT group only (p < 0.01). They also demonstrated a reduction in road rage (p = 0.01) and risky driving (p = 0.04) at post-assessment. CONCLUSION: VRDSRT showed promising results with respect to retraining driving performance and behavior among military personnel recovering from TBI.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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