Characterization of Cognitive-Motor Function in Women Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence-Related Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects at least one in three women worldwide, and up to 92% report symptoms consistent with brain injury (BI). Although a handful of studies have examined different aspects of brain structure and function in this population, none has characterized potential deficits in cognitive-motor function. This knowledge gap was addressed in the current study by having participants who had experienced IPV complete the bimanual Object Hit & Avoid (OHA) task in a Kinesiological Instrument for Normal and Altered Reaching Movement (KINARM) End-Point Laboratory. BI load, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, substance use, and history of abuse were also assessed. A stepwise multiple regression was undertaken to explore the relationship between BI load and task performance while accounting for comorbid psychopathologies. Results demonstrated that BI load accounted for a significant amount of variability in the number of targets hit and the average hand speed. PTSD, anxiety, and depression also contributed significantly to the variability in these measures as well as to the number and proportion of distractor hits, and the object processing rate. Taken together, these findings suggest that IPV-related BI, as well as comorbid PTSD, anxiety, and depression, disrupt the processing required to quickly and accurately hit targets while avoiding distractors. This pattern of results reflects the complex interaction between the physical injuries induced by the episodes of IPV and the resulting impacts that these experiences have on mental health.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".