<i>The Feasibility of the Thai Sensory Profile Assessment Tool (TSPA)</i> for Classifying the participants for Mind-Body intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The previous research found that multisensory interventions impact behavioral responses in healthy individuals and clinical populations, but few have been shown the impacts of Mind-Body intervention on cortisol levels in different sensory personalities. In Thailand, the earlier study found that the Thai Sensory Profile Assessment Tool (TSPA) had acceptable validity and reliability in classifying sensory personality called “sensory pattern”. The pattern is divided into sensory preference and sensory threshold, which is formulated from personal experience. Objective The main objective of this study is to examine the feasibility and interpretability of TSPA in classifying sensory patterns of participants attending Mind-Body Intervention consisting of Mindfulness-Based Flow Practice (MBFP) and Relax On-site program. Materials and methods There is a sub-study of a controlled cross-over trial study effect of a mindfulness intervention on anxiety and biomarkers in healthy nursing staff. For this study, we aim to categorize sensory patterns and find the feasibility of Mind-Body Intervention. Each participant was self-tested by TSPA before the intervention, either relaxation on-site or MBFP in the residential retreat program. The feasibility criteria include the time for finishing the test. The interpretability including participant’s comprehension and the classification phenotype provides insight into different effects of the intervention. The effect of MBFP and relaxation on-site was measured quantitatively by the change of morning cortisol before and after the intervention and qualitatively from satisfaction interviews after the intervention. Results The TSPA assessment takes an average time of 20 minutes. There is no complaint about the difficulty to understand participants. We classified participants by TSPA pattern into three groups by the sensory preference, including, 1) Balanced majority (14/20) have a moderate sensory preference and threshold, 2) low sensory preference for taste and smell (3/20), and 3) high sensory preference for sight smell and movement (3/20). At the same time, most participants show higher cortisol after relaxation on-site and decreased cortisol after MBFP. Conclusions This pilot study showed that TSPA can be a feasible tool for assessing the sensory preference of the participants to match the health promotion modalities appropriately. We also got a preliminary insight that people with low smell sensory preference, low smell sensory threshold, high sensory preference insight, and movement with moderate threshold showed differences in MBFP. However, it needs a larger sample, and a simpler questionnaire related to the MBFP intervention program to prove these initial findings.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".