Text messages reduce memory failures in adults with brain injury: A single-case experimental design
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
Introduction This study evaluated the efficacy of a low-cost reminder system to support prospective memory after traumatic brain injury and identified factors that contributed to the outcome. Method Two single-case experimental designs with multiple baselines across activities are described. Participants presented moderate-to-severe cognitive impairments in one case and post-concussion syndrome in the other. Both reported memory problems in everyday activities. Target activities were selected using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Participants were taught how to send reminders through Google Calendar to their mobile phones. Results The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure showed improved self-perception of performance and satisfaction levels. Using non-overlap of all pairs statistical analysis, most, but not all, target activities showed statistically significant improvement, with non-overlap ranging from 47% to 98%. Adjustments in the use of the reminders based on each participant’s activities and cognitive abilities were required in order to maximise the benefits. Conclusion The reminder system was effective in increasing the frequency of completion of routine activities of daily living. To increase the effectiveness of ubiquitous technology in supporting cognition after brain injury, several factors co-existing with cognitive problems should be taken into account.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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