MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2249807511 · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-914-1-365

The Use of Virtual Reality in the Assessment of Driving Performance in Persons with Brain Injury

2000· article· en· W2249807511 on OpenAlexaff
LINDA HIRSEKORN, SUE TAYLAR

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityDriving simulatorAcquired brain injuryPerceptionCognitionComputer scienceDriving testTest (biology)Human–computer interactionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologySimulationMedicineMachine learningRehabilitationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present the results of a pilot study that examined the driving performance of persons with brain injury using a virtual reality environment, known as the DriVR. Virtual driving performance was examined and compared to on-road, cognitive, visual-perceptual, and driving video test results. The DriVR appeared to be a useful adjunctive screening tool for assessing driving performance. However as with any new assessment tool, will need to undergo further empirical validation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207