Exploratory study of HRB signs, patterns, and right-left differences relating to spatial cognition following nonimpact mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sweeney and Johnson found that response time on the Tactile Form Recognition Test (TFR) of the Halstead-Reitan Test Battery (HRB) requiring speeded tactile- and visual-spatial recognition was deficient for Nonimpact mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) individuals in comparison to Impact mTBI and No mTBI participants. A follow-up study by Sweeney and Slade noted that skills most sensitive to Deficient TFR performance of mTBI subjects involved tactile-spatial perception, with lateralization of inferior performances contralateral to cerebral regions known to specialize in the spatial skills required. The current study compared frequencies of HRB Pathognomonic Signs, atypical Score Patterns, and abnormal Right-Left Differences for Nonimpact mTBI groups that exhibited Deficient, Perfectly Normal, or Normal TFR performances. The only statistically significant finding was that the Deficient TFR group produced a disproportionately greater number of errors with the right hand relative to the left hand on Fingertip Number Writing Perception. Deficient TFR mTBI individuals were 5.29 times more likely to commit errors with the right hand on the Fingertip Number Writing Perception Test than Perfectly Normal and Normal TFR mTBI subjects. Tentative clinical markers of neuropsychological changes that appear to be associated with Nonimpact mTBI, based on a series of investigations, were provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".