Visual memory performance following mild traumatic brain injury and its relationship with intellectual functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the visual memory performance of uncomplicated and complicated mild TBI (mTBI) groups with that of a control group on the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT). We also aimed to explore the influence of factors such as age, gender, education, occupation, and intellectual functioning on visual memory in individuals with mTBI. The RCFT and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI-II) were administered to 138 participants (90 uncomplicated mTBI patients, 19 complicated mTBI patients, and 29 controls). The mTBI patients demonstrated significantly lower scores than control participants on both immediate and delayed RCFT recall conditions, with performance in the low average and borderline range. However, there was no difference in performance between the two mTBI groups on the recall conditions. In addition, no significant differences were observed across the three groups on the recognition condition. The WASI-II Performance and Verbal IQ scales explained most of the variance in the immediate and delayed RCFT recall conditions but were not associated with performance on the recognition condition. In contrast with the recognition processes involved in visual memory, recall processes seem to be more vulnerable following mTBI and both verbal and performance IQ seem to be related to visual memory performance.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".