Vision, Visuomotor and Executive Function in Older Adults with a History of Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with negative sequelae affecting sensorimotor and executive functions. Conversely, age-related decline in these functions is also well documented. The current study examined the accelerating aging hypothesis by assessing vision, fine motor skills and executive function in older individuals with a history of TBI. It was hypothesized that the age-related reduction in function would be exacerbated in individuals with TBI. Methods: Participants ( n = 27) were community-dwelling older adults (mean age 74.6 years, SD 6.8; 14 females). The history of TBI was determined using the Ohio State University TBI Identification Method ( n = 13). The visual examination included visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and binocular vision. Visuomotor control was assessed using a precision grasping and placement task. The antisaccade task was used to evaluate executive functions. Participants with a history of TBI also completed questionnaires assessing quality of life. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups for the vision tests or fine motor skill assessment. In contrast, the oculomotor test revealed significantly longer saccade latency in the group with a history of TBI (10%–12% difference, p < 0.05). Exploratory analysis showed a significant negative association between the antisaccade latency and lower participation score on the Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale. Conclusions: Results indicate that oculomotor testing is a sensitive behavioral assay of executive functions in older adults and differentiates between healthy adults and those with a history of TBI. The significant saccade latency slowing supports the accelerating aging hypothesis, while the association with community participation suggests an impact on lifestyle.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".