Robotic assessment of sensorimotor and cognitive deficits in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) frequently demonstrate impairments in executive function, working memory, and/or declarative memory. It is recommended that screening for cognitive impairment is undertaken in all people newly diagnosed with epilepsy. However, standard neuropsychological assessments are a limited resource and thus not available to all. Our study investigated the use of robotic technology (the Kinarm robot) for cognitive screening. METHODS: 27 participants with TLE (17 left) underwent both a brief neuropsychological screening and a robotic (Kinarm) assessment. The degree of impairments and correlations between standardized scores from both approaches to assessments were analysed across different neurocognitive domains. Performance was compared between people with left and right TLE to look for laterality effects. Finally, the association between the duration of epilepsy and performance was assessed. RESULTS: Across the 6 neurocognitive domains (attention, executive function, language, memory, motor and visuospatial) assessed by our neuropsychological screening, all showed scores that significantly correlated with Kinarm tasks assessing the same cognitive domains except language and memory that were not adequately assessed with Kinarm. Participants with right TLE performed worse on most tasks than those with left TLE, including both visuospatial (typically considered right hemisphere), and verbal memory and language tasks (typically considered left hemisphere). No correlations were found between the duration of epilepsy and either the neuropsychological screening or Kinarm assessment. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings suggest that Kinarm may be a useful tool in screening for neurocognitive impairment in people with TLE. Further development may facilitate an easier and more rapid screening of cognition in people with epilepsy and distinguishing patterns of cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".