MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736239494

Behavioural and cerebrovascular changes following acute visual deprivation

2011· article· en· W2736239494 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Binsted, Keith Z. Brewster, Karen Bourns, Francisco L. Colino, Darian T Cheng, Philip N. Ainslie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProprioceptionSensory deprivationPsychologySensory systemNeurosciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationCerebral blood flowSleep deprivationMedicineCognitionAnesthesia
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study sought to investigate the effects of short-term (two-hour) visual deprivation on proprioception mediated movement planning/control and the associated cerebral blood flow (CBFv). In Experiment 1, visual deprivation was used to differentiate proprioception from vision by having participants perform a series of grasping tasks, both prior to and post deprivation. Participants were instructed to grasp a target under both vision and no-vision conditions while kinematic measurements were obtained. During visual deprivation, subjects participated in tactile discrimination tasks to promote proprioceptive plasticity. In Experiment 2, visual deprivation was used to determine how the neurovascular system responds to such deprivation. Transcranaial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound was used to attain CBFv measures for both the posterior cerebral artery (PCA) and the middle cerebral artery (MCA); neurovascular coupling protocols were used pre/post deprivation. Experiment 1 indicated augmented use of proprioception for motor planning, but less so for motor control of reaching and grasping strategies following acute visual deprivation. Experiment 2 indicated dramatic changes in CBFv, in both cerebral arteries, during and post deprivation, suggesting the brain undergoes a series of haemodynamic changes when vision is deprived.These results conform to findings that sensory deprivation is associated with plasticity and behavioral changes (Merabet &Pascual-Leone, 2010). Acknowledgments: NSERC, CFI, BCKDF

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and SportSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207