Brain Activity Patterns Uniquely Supporting Visual Feature Integration after Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients typically respond more slowly and with more variability than controls during tasks of attention requiring speeded reaction time. These behavioral changes are attributable, at least in part, to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), which affects integrated processing in distributed systems. Here we use a multivariate method sensitive to distributed neural activity to compare brain activity patterns of patients with chronic phase moderate to-severe TBI to those of controls during performance on a visual feature integration task assessing complex attentional processes that has previously shown sensitivity to TBI. The TBI patients were carefully screened to be free of large focal lesions that can affect performance and brain activation independently of DAI. The task required subjects to hold either one or three features of a Target in mind while suppressing responses to distracting information. In controls, the multi-feature condition activated a distributed network including limbic, prefrontal, and medial temporal structures. TBI patients engaged this same network in the single-feature and baseline conditions. In multi-feature presentations, TBI patients alone activated additional frontal, parietal, and occipital regions. These results are consistent with neuroimaging studies using tasks assessing different cognitive domains, where increased spread of brain activity changes was associated with TBI. Our results also extend previous findings that brain activity for relatively moderate task demands in TBI patients is similar to that associated with of high task demands in controls.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".