MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400392389 · doi:10.1093/arclin/acae052.46

A - 46 Putting Together “Puzzle Pieces” of the Game: Executive Functions in Athletes with Sports-Related Concussion History

2024· article· en· W4400392389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Madeline M. Doucette, Mauricio A. García-Barrera

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcussionAthletesPsychologyExecutive functionsApplied psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCognitive psychologyPhysical therapyMedicineInjury preventionPsychiatryPoison controlCognitionMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose While previous quantitative research has explored the malleability of executive functions in sports, there’s a gap in understanding athletes’ descriptions and utilization of executive functions during gameplay. Understanding these processes from athletes’ perspectives is crucial for developing relevant assessments, particularly following sports-related concussion (SRC), as well as using accessible athlete-driven language to describing executive function in sports neuropsychology. Thus, our study aimed to explore how athletes deploy executive functions during games and identify the most crucial executive function components for success. Method 19 Canadian collegiate athletes (ages 18–25; 37% female) with a history of SRC across various sports (soccer, volleyball, rugby, and basketball) were recruited. Participants completed semi-structured interviews via Zoom with a focus on identifying their executive function processes in their respective sports. Thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach, was used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results We generated three themes: 1) Planning, organizing, and deciding action before actively involved in the play; 2) Problem solving when the contingencies for the pre-planned play changes; 3) Processing and evaluating performance immediately after a play. Conclusions These results provide nuance to our understanding of executive functions in sport by gaining insight into how athletes think while playing, information that neither tasks nor questionnaires offer. Through qualitative interviews, we discovered athletes engage in various executive processes throughout the game, including strategic planning and problem-solving. Overall, this study highlights specific executive processes employed throughout a game, which may become areas of focus for assessment, interventions, and follow-up for athletes following SRC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Clinical NeuropsychologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207