Training of goal-directed attention regulation enhances control over neural processing for individuals with brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficits in attention and executive control are some of the most common, debilitating and persistent consequences of brain injuries. Understanding neural mechanisms that support clinically significant improvements, when they do occur, may help advance treatment development. Intervening via rehabilitation provides an opportunity to probe such mechanisms. Our objective was to identify neural mechanisms that underlie improvements in attention and executive control with rehabilitation training. We tested the hypothesis that intensive training enhances modulatory control of neural processing of perceptual information in patients with acquired brain injuries. Patients (n=12) participated either in standardized training designed to target goal-directed attention regulation, or a comparison condition (brief education). Training resulted in significant improvements on behavioural measures of attention and executive control. Functional magnetic resonance imaging methods adapted for testing the effects of intervention for patients with varied injury pathology were used to index modulatory control of neural processing. Pattern classification was utilized to decode individual functional magnetic resonance imaging data acquired during a visual selective attention task. Results showed that modulation of neural processing in extrastriate cortex was significantly enhanced by attention regulation training. Neural changes in prefrontal cortex, a candidate mediator for attention regulation, appeared to depend on individual baseline state. These behavioural and neural effects did not occur with the comparison condition. These results suggest that enhanced modulatory control over visual processing and a rebalancing of prefrontal functioning may underlie improvements in attention and executive control.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".