MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391560294 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297711

Acute stress negatively impacts on-task behavior and lecture comprehension

2024· article· en· W4391560294 on OpenAlexafffund
Anisa Morava, Ali Shirzad, James Van Riesen, Nader Elshawish, Joshua Ahn, Harry Prapavessis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComprehensionTrier social stress testAnxietyStress (linguistics)PsychologyMind-wanderingCognitive psychologyCognitionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineFight-or-flight responsePsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute stress has been shown to disrupt cognitive and learning processes. The present study examined the effects of acute stress on mind wandering during a lecture and subsequent lecture comprehension in young adults. Forty participants were randomized to acute stress induction via the Trier Social Stress Test or rest prior to watching a twenty-minute video lecture with embedded mind wandering probes, followed by a lecture comprehension assessment. Stress responses were assessed via heart rate, blood pressure, salivary cortisol, and state anxiety. Individuals exposed to acute stress endorsed greater mind wandering at the first checkpoint and lower lecture comprehension scores. Moreover, state anxiety post stress was positively associated with mind wandering at the first and second checkpoint and negatively associated with lecture comprehension. Only mind wandering at the third checkpoint was negatively correlated with overall lecture comprehension. Taken together, these data suggest that acute stress, mind wandering, and lecture comprehension are inextricably linked.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMind wandering and attentionFrench-language works237,207