ERP evidence of heightened attentional response to visual stimuli in migraine headache disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New findings from migraine studies have indicated that this common headache disorder is associated with anomalies in attentional processing. In tandem with the previous explorations, this study will provide evidence to show that visual attention is impacted by migraine headache disorders. 43 individuals were initially recruited in the migraine group and 33 people with non-migraine headache disorders were in the control group. The event-related potentials (ERP) of the participants were calculated using data from a visual oddball paradigm task. By analyzing the N200 and P300 ERP components, migraineurs, as compared to controls, had an exaggerated oddball response showing increased amplitude in N200 and P300 difference scores for the oddball vs. standard, while the latencies of the two components remained the same in the migraine and control groups. We then looked at two classifications of migraine with and without aura compared to non-migraine controls. One-Way ANOVA analysis of the two migraine groups and the non-migraine control group showed that the different level of N200 and P300 amplitude mean scores was greater between migraineurs without aura and the control group while these components' latency remained the same relatively in the three groups. Our results give more neurophysiological support that people with migraine headaches have altered processing of visual attention.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".