The Efficiency of Attentional Networks in Children Who Stutter
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
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether previously reported questionnaire-based differences in self-regulatory behaviors (Eggers, De Nil, & Van den Bergh, 2009, 2010) between children who stutter (CWS) and children who do not stutter (CWNS) would also be reflected in their underlying attentional networks. METHOD: Participants consisted of 41 CWS (mean age = 6;09; years;months) and 41 CWNS (mean age = 6;09) ranging in age from 4;00 to 9;00. Participants were matched on age and gender. The efficiency of the attentional networks was assessed by using the computerized Attention Network Test (Fan, McCandliss, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002). RESULTS: Primary results indicated that CWS had a significantly lower efficiency of the orienting network compared with CWNS, whereas no differences were found on the alerting or executive control network. CONCLUSION: Current findings corroborate previously found differences in self-regulatory behavior and were taken to suggest a possible role for attentional processes in developmental stuttering.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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