MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113233186 · doi:10.1118/1.4769107

Methodology for functional MRI of simulated driving

2012· article· en· W2113233186 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Kan, Tom A. Schweizer, Fred Tam, Simon J. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHeart and Stroke FoundationSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingContext (archaeology)Driving simulatorOccipital lobePrimary motor cortexPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPoison controlComputer scienceSimulationMotor cortexNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The developed world faces major socioeconomic and medical challenges associated with motor vehicle accidents caused by risky driving. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of individuals using virtual reality driving simulators may provide an important research tool to assess driving safety, based on brain activity and behavior. METHODS: A fMRI-compatible driving simulator was developed and evaluated in the context of straight driving, turning, and stopping in 16 young healthy adults. RESULTS: Robust maps of brain activity were obtained, including activation of the primary motor cortex, cerebellum, visual cortex, and parietal lobe, with limited head motion (<1.5 mm deviation from mean head position in the superior∕inferior direction in all subjects) and only minor correlations between head motion, steering, or braking behavior. CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with previous literature and suggest that with care, fMRI of simulated driving is a feasible undertaking.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207