Use of the UFOV to Evaluate and Retrain Visual Attention Skills in Clients With Stroke: A Pilot 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: The objective of this pilot study was to examine the use of a visual attention analyzer in the evaluation and retraining of useful field of view in clients with stroke. METHOD: Fifty-two clients with stroke referred to a driving evaluation service were evaluated with a visual attention analyzer referred to as the UFOV. The UFOV assesses three aspects of visual attention: processing speed, divided attention, and selective attention. Seven participants were retested to determine the test-retest reliability of the UFOV. Six participated in the development of a training protocol and in a 20-session visual attention retraining program. RESULTS: UFOV scores indicated substantial reduction in visual attention in clients after stroke, with older participants performing the most poorly. Test-retest reliability was moderate (ICC = .70). Mean UFOV scores improved significantly after retraining. CONCLUSION: Although UFOV scores indicated poor visual attention skills in clients with stroke, preliminary information suggests that UFOV scores significantly improve with training.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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