Factors perpetuating functional cognitive symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Self-reported memory difficulties (forgetting familiar names, misplacing objects) often persist long after a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), despite normal neuropsychological test performance. This clinical presentation may be a manifestation of a functional cognitive disorder (FCD). Several mechanisms underlying FCD have been proposed, including metacognitive impairment, memory perfectionism, and misdirected attention, as well as depression or anxiety-related explanations. This study aims to explore these candidate perpetuating factors in mTBI, to advance our understanding of why memory symptoms frequently persist following mTBI. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 67 adults (n = 39 with mTBI mean = 25 months ago and n = 28 healthy controls). Participants completed standardized questionnaires (including the Functional Memory Disorder Inventory), a metacognitive task (to quantify discrepancies between their trial-by-trial accuracy and confidence), and a brief neuropsychological test battery. We assessed candidate mechanisms in two ways: (1) between-groups, comparing participants with mTBI to healthy controls, and (2) within-group, examining their associations with functional memory symptom severity (FMDI) in the mTBI group. RESULTS: Participants with mTBI performed similarly to controls on objective measures of memory ability but reported experiencing much more frequent memory lapses in daily life. Contrary to expectations, metacognitive efficiency did not differentiate the mTBI and control groups and was not associated with functional memory symptoms. Memory perfectionism was strongly associated with greater functional memory symptoms among participants with mTBI but did not differ between groups when accounting for age. Depression and checking behaviors produced consistent results across between-groups and within-group analyses: these factors were greater in the mTBI group compared to the control group and were associated with greater functional memory symptoms within the mTBI group. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights promising (e.g., depression, checking behaviors) and unlikely (e.g., metacognitive impairment) mechanisms underlying functional memory symptoms after mTBI, to guide future research and treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".