Eye movements reveal alternative problem-solving strategies in concussed individuals during performance of the Tower of London task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eye movements may be used to probe higher-level cognitive processes (i.e., executive functions: EF) that support goal-directed behaviours. Since EFs are related to various aspects of life (i.e., mental/physical health, job success, etc.), eye movements could serve as an indicator for monitoring the progression of outcomes related to disease and rehabilitation in clinical populations. Concussion, a mild traumatic brain injury, is associated with subtle neurocognitive deficits that hinder an individual’s real-life performance (i.e., work, school, etc.) long after their clinical symptoms have resolved. Previous work with healthy adults has shown that distinct patterns of gaze behaviour are associated with increased planning and working memory demands. We expand on this work by characterizing gaze behaviour in asymptomatic adults with a history of concussion (>6 months prior) using a challenging problem-solving task (i.e., Tower of London: TOL). Six participants completed the TOL task and gaze was recorded across 28 trials of increasing task difficulty. Our results demonstrated that as task difficulty increased, performance accuracy decreased, while the initial planning and execution movement times increased (ps<0.001). A gaze bias was demonstrated toward the work-space (~60%) during the initial planning and execution intervals (ps<0.002). Notably, participants with concussion did not show the well-documented task difficulty-dependent increase in work-space dwell time. Gaze transition entropy (GTE) (i.e., scan path complexity) increased as a function of task difficulty during the planning (p=0.001) and execution stages (p=0.015). Moreover, GTE was significantly higher in the concussed group when compared to a previous study with healthy adults. As such, our findings provide evidence that asymptomatic individuals with a history of concussion engage in alternative, less efficient planning and problem-solving strategies when performing the TOL task. These strategies allow them to perform the task well when the difficulty level is low-moderate, but performance deficits become apparent in more difficult task conditions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".