MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414444593 · doi:10.1177/09226028251379341

The Impact of Cognitive Impairment on Pedal Control and Crash Risk Following Stroke: A Pilot Study

2025· article· en· W4414444593 on OpenAlex
Stefan Delmas, Prakruti Patel, Agostina Casamento‐Moran, Evangelos A. Christou, Neha Lodha

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRestorative Neurology and Neuroscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPoison controlStroke (engine)BrakeCrashInjury preventionCognitive Assessment SystemHuman factors and ergonomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Driving after stroke requires complex coordination of cognitive and motor systems, yet the influence of post-stroke cognitive impairment on lower limb motor control during driving remains poorly understood. This pilot study examined the association between cognitive function and lower limb motor control of gas/brake pedal control in stroke survivors. We hypothesized that compromised cognitive function would be associated with worse gas and brake pedal control. Twenty stroke survivors (65.89 ± 9.67 years; 6 females) participated. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Useful Field of View (UFOV) test scores for divided and selective attention. Participants performed a car-following task in a driving simulator requiring precise gas and brake control. Pedal control was quantified by gas pedal error, brake force error, and brake response time. Participants were categorized into cognitively normal and cognitively impaired groups (n=10 each). Driving behavior was assessed using the Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ), and crash risk was determined via UFOV classification. Increased gas pedal error was associated with poorer MoCA scores and selective attention deficits. Delayed brake response times correlated with lower MoCA scores and poorer divided and selective attention. Although self-reported driving behavior was comparable between groups, 60% of cognitively impaired participants demonstrated moderate to high crash risk compared to cognitively normal participants, who exhibited low crash risk. Cognitive impairment after stroke is significantly linked to impaired lower limb control during driving and elevated crash risk. These findings highlight an urgent need to integrate cognitive assessment along with motor assessments in post-stroke rehabilitation. Future advances in neuroengineering technologies, and personalized motor-cognitive interventions could play a critical role in restoring safe driving capabilities and mobility independence after stroke.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.386 · 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