Abstract 16684: Cardiovascular Responses of Persons With ABI to Computerized Motor-Cognitive Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that a traumatic brain injury is associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular pathology and impaired responses to activities of daily living. However, limited standardized testing is available to document cardiovascular responses during motor-cognitive function after acquired brain injury (ABI). Our study aimed to compare cardiovascular responses in persons with and without ABI during motor-cognitive assessments in virtual-reality gaming environments. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in participant effort as defined by cardiovascular response specific to each activity. Methods: 50 participants (M/F = 16/34) age 29.31 (+/-11.667) years with and without ABI (9/41) performed a timed, 4-square stepping task to test dynamic balance (4SST) and the standardized Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).Testing included polar heart monitoring of participant effort via heart rate (HR) while performing five standardized, virtual-reality games to test motor-cognitive skills. Variables included HR, 4SST time, MoCA score, and computerized Cognitive Scores (ICOG). Descriptive statistics explored group performance using SPSS 24.0 (IBM) and an alpha level of 0.05. Results: results Indicated similar performance in MoCA and ICOG scores (26.78 +/- 2.188, 28.043 +/- 2.230 respectively) but ICOG effort ratings were significantly higher in the ABI group compared to without ABI (2.60 +/- 1.140 vs. 1.60 +/- 1.095 respectively). Also, the ABI group took significantly longer to complete each ICOG activity (34.056 +/- 24.461 vs. 29.964 +/- 25.727 respectively) with significantly delayed reaction times (3.598+/- 1.542 vs. 2.825 +/- 1.630 respectively). Significant relationships occurred between the ICOG activity score and the associated HR (r = - 0.512, p = 0.030) and 4SST and AGE (r = 0.526, p = 0.025). Multiple regression analysis indicated history of concussion, previous night hours of sleep, MoCA scores, gender, and HR significantly explained 61.2% of the ICOG variance (p = 0. 005). Discussion: Results indicate significant differences in cardiovascular responses to motor-cognitive activities however similar performance in MoCA and ICOG scores. There was also a significant difference in effort and reaction time scores. This trend appeared to explain overall ICOG performance as presented by the regression analysis. Conclusions: Preliminary findings warrant further research of cardiovascular responses during specific motor-cognitive tasks common to ADL’s.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".