MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903096745 · doi:10.32598/bcn.9.10.195

The Effect of a Prostration (Sajdeh) on the Prefrontal Brain Activity, a Pilot Study

2018· article· en· W2903096745 on OpenAlexaff
Fateme Yousefzadeh, Gila Pirzad Jahromi, Ehsan Mokari Manshadi, Boshra Hatef

Bibliographic record

VenueBasic and Clinical Neuroscience Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcupuncture Treatment Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Medical Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsFractal dimensionSample entropyPsychologyAudiologyEntropy (arrow of time)FractalMathematicsMathematical analysisMedicineQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: "Sajdah", a prostration position, is part of Muslim daily prayers. It seems to have several effects on the brain and heart function. This study aimed to investigate the prefrontal brain activity after 10 seconds of Sajdah in the direction of Qibla (the direction that a Muslim prays) while putting the forehead on the ground. METHODS: Three women and two men participated in this pilot study. Linear (absolute and relative power of θ (4-8Hz), α 1 (8-10 Hz), α 2 (10-12 Hz), β 1 (12-16 Hz), β 2 (16-20 Hz), β 3 (20-30 Hz), γ 1 (30-40 Hz), γ 2 (40-50 Hz) and non-linear features (approximate entropy, Katz fractal dimension, Petrosian fractal dimension, spectral entropy, and sample entropy) from Fps channel were calculated. RESULTS: The relative β to γ band, approximate and sample entropy, Petrosian fractal dimension and mean of amplitude decreased in open eye state in women. While θ to γ bands in the closed eye state decreased after Sajdah in women. The absolute γ bands in closed eye state and relative β band in open eye state increased after Sajdah in men. CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed that 10 seconds of Sajdah has effects on brain activity and sometimes showed the opposite effect on genders.

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)0.006
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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBasic and Clinical Neuroscience JournalSame topicAcupuncture Treatment Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207