Is the strong desire to void a source of diverted attention in healthy adult volunteers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The strong desire to void (SDV) induces changes in both cognition and gait. This may be due to the sensation of urinary urge acting as a source of diverted attention. This exploratory study examined the influence of SDV and a standardized distracting task on the performance of two measures of cognition, a simple reaction time (SRT) test and the trail making B test (TMT-B). METHODS: 18 volunteers, 8 male and 10 female, without lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) (mean age: 20.5, range: 20-47), performed a test of SRT and the TMT-B under three conditions; undistracted with an empty bladder, while experiencing SDV, and when performing a simultaneous distracting task, the auditory n back test. RESULTS: A statistically significant increase in SRT was found when experiencing SDV and when distracted compared with the undistracted, bladder empty condition. The time taken to compete the TMT-B significantly increased with distraction but was not affected by SDV. CONCLUSION: SDV induced a similar but smaller change in reaction time when compared with a distracting task, suggesting that SDV may act as a source of diverted attention in continent, healthy volunteers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".