MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210215256 · doi:10.1017/brimp.2021.20

Working memory for emotions in adolescents and young adults with traumatic brain injury

2021· article· en· W3210215256 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey Byom, Meaghan S. Whaln, Lyn S. Turkstra

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Impairment · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsWorking memoryTraumatic brain injuryAffect (linguistics)PsychologyYoung adultCognitionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAudiologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This preliminary study investigated the interaction between working memory and social cognition in adolescents and young adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). It was hypothesized that participants with or without TBI would better recognize social information when working memory or social cognitive load was low, and that adolescents and young adults with TBI would be more affected by increased cognitive demand than their uninjured peers. Eight adolescents and young adults with complicated mild-severe TBI (aged 14-22 years) and eight age- and sex-matched typically developing (TD) adolescents completed computer-based n-back tasks requiring recognition of either face identity or facial affect, with 0-back, 1-, and 2-back conditions. The TBI group had lower scores overall than the TD group, and scores for both groups were lower for affect recognition than identity recognition. Scores for both groups were lower in conditions with a higher working memory load. There was a significant group-by-working memory interaction, with larger group differences in high-working memory conditions. Study results and their potential implications for social outcomes are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.840

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain ImpairmentSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207