Self-Awareness and Self-Ratings of On-Road Driving Performance After Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine self-rated, clinician-rated, and self-awareness of on-road driving performance in individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) deemed fit and unfit to resume driving and healthy controls, and to explore their associations with demographic, injury, cognitive, and mood variables. METHODS: Participants included 37 individuals with moderate to severe TBI, and 49 healthy age, sex, and education-matched controls from Australia and Canada. Participants completed an on-road assessment, the Brain Injury Driving Self-Awareness Measure (BIDSAM), and a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. RESULTS: Awareness scores on the BIDSAM were significantly different between groups, F(2, 83) = 28.44 (P < .001; η = 0.41), with post hoc tests indicating TBI participants who failed the on-road assessment had worse scores compared with those who passed and controls. Poor self-awareness was significantly correlated with reduced psychomotor speed (rs = -0.37; P < .01) and attentional switching (rs = 0.28; P < .01). Worse self-ratings of driving were associated with depression (rs = 0.42; P < .01) and anxiety (rs = 0.38; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with TBI who failed an on-road assessment significantly overestimated their driving ability. Impaired cognitive function was associated with reduced self-awareness of driving. These findings suggest impaired awareness of driving may need to be addressed as part of driver rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".