Orchids, Tulips, and Dandelions: Exploring Sensory Sensitivity, Anxiety, and Cognitive Distractibility in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxious individuals and those with sensory processing sensitivity-a temperamental trait characterized by heightened sensitivity to both internal and external stimuli- exhibit hypervigilance in non-threatening environments. This study examines how the relationship between anxiety, sensory sensitivity, and cognitive distractibility in children and adolescents without clinical diagnoses. Data were collected from 47 children aged 8-17, who completed two visual oddball (VO) tasks, including one with distracting background noise of multiple voices speaking simultaneously. The Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (MASC) and the Highly Sensitive Child (HSC) Scale assessed anxiety symptoms and sensory sensitivity. Results indicate that sensitivity moderates the relationship between anxiety and performance, with high sensitivity linked to higher reaction times (cognitive distractibility) at low anxiety levels. Conversely, low sensitivity corresponds to faster reaction times. At high anxiety levels, sensitivity has minimal impact on distractibility. These findings highlight the importance of sensitivity in understanding anxiety’s effect on cognitive performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".