ライフサイエンスコーパス: distraction

1 under mental load (stress, time pressure, or distraction).

2 t the same use of avoidance strategies (e.g. distraction).

3 an correct peptide sequences (referred to as distraction).

4 n tasks in the presence of cross-modal noise distraction.

5 eficial for new bone formation in periosteal distraction.

6 for new bone formation induced by periosteal distraction.

7 ed at 2, 4, and 6 weeks after the end of the distraction.

8 ing they contribute to suppressing bottom-up distraction.

9 eactivation for the retrieval of faces after distraction.

10 es) and nonspatial (faces) information after distraction.

11 ntially because of counter-irritation and/or distraction.

12 re involved in the retrieval of scenes after distraction.

13 etic stimulation increased susceptibility to distraction.

14 elevant information in WM in the presence of distraction.

15 of lexical activation and poor recall after distraction.

16 e functioning on verbal memory tests free of distraction.

17 es in managing interference from a source of distraction.

18 ch-to-sample task with intervening gustatory distraction.

19 dent alpha oscillatory mechanism to suppress distraction.

20 fth time, during painful stimulation without distraction.

21 vation was associated with the inhibition of distraction.

22 goal-relevant information in the presence of distraction.

23 nability both to focus on targets and ignore distraction.

24 y systems in their sensitivity to concurrent distraction.

25 oid joint and bipartite os peroneum fragment distraction.

26 fficulty on DNMS only at 600 sec delays with distraction.

27 contents and/or to prevent interference from distraction.

28 ciated with correct memory performance after distraction.

29 ith distraction compared with trials without distraction.

30 uld not maintain the verbal items during the distraction.

31 plants that were placed and loaded following distraction.

32 delay of a spatial working memory task with distraction.

33 evolutionary conflict dictates the degree of distraction.

34 with attention and improve or disappear with distraction.

35 and they lead to motor slowing and cognitive distraction.

36 ader's needs, in the moment, for pleasure or distraction.

37 rocessing stimuli in our environment despite distraction.

38 rd to maintain focus on goals in the face of distraction.

39 rally relevant visual stimuli while ignoring distraction.

40 a better predictor of WMC in the absence of distraction.

41 that matters, while ignoring a cacophony of distractions.

42 luation, duration of handover, and number of distractions.

43 identify intraoperative errors, events, and distractions.

44 ween internally generated goals and external distractions.

45 tentional mechanisms for inhibiting expected distractions.

46 op is intermittently severed by sensorimotor distractions.

47 rate the resilience of surgical residents to distractions.

48 cus on the current task and ignore all other distractions.

49 working memory while challenged by incoming distractions?

50 t in 102 resident handoffs (48%) (16% with 1 distraction; 15% with 2; 6% with 3, and 11% with >/=4).

51 medial rectus muscle, and inattention and/or distraction (19 [16.7%]).

52 Pages were the most common distraction (37.5%), followed by telephone calls (32.8%)

53 d cyclodialysis; 7.5 joules--corneal stromal distraction; 9.3 joules--choroidal segmentation; and 10

54 ial environment issues (additional tasks and distractions), abuse and violence, inadequate team (peer

55 In the absence of rehearsal, a source of distraction added to unrefreshed information signals a r

56 aradoxically increase memory impairments and distraction alleviates these memory deficits in patients

57 Four neurocognitive measures free of distraction, along with 2 measures with added distractio

58 utodigestion, inactivation, cannibalism, and distraction, altering kinetic considerations from other

59 tly exert the capacity to resist attentional distraction, although they do not to sustain this capaci

60 Mental distraction and auditory stress negatively affect specif

61 noise levels due to acoustic masking and/or distraction and aversion to traffic noise.

62 Because smaller databases yield less distraction and better discrimination between correct an

63 derlying proactive and reactive filtering of distraction and conflict, and how they are orchestrated

64 vs 60%) Incongruent blocks for counteracting distraction and conflict, including in the insula and an

65 dimensional printer, custom-designed cranial distraction and constriction devices, and intraoperative

66 ild inflammatory and reactive changes during distraction and during the first few weeks of consolidat

67 ory activity in these networks is reduced by distraction and is enhanced when attended features can b

68 ter ingestion shortly before phlebotomy, and distraction and muscle tension during collection.

69 ntrol task were included to test for general distraction and nonmemory-related motor effects.

70 task that required rats to navigate - after distractions and a delay - to multiple possible goal loc

71 e intensive care environment providing ample distractions and opportunity for error, the administrati

72 d highly accurate even in the face of mental distractions and the uncontrolled environment beyond a l

73 on and decision making without succumbing to distractions and unforeseen obstacles.

74 across testing conditions (with and without distraction) and study phases (fixed and flexible dose).

75 he cognitive and behavioral responses during distraction, and places frontal cortex at the top of the

76 which spoken sentences were processed under distraction, and whether this depended on the acoustic q

77 At least 1 cognitive distraction appeared in 84 cases (64%).

78 g techniques, abilities focussed approaches, distraction approaches, and video-simulated presence of

79 nd adjuncts that provide visual and auditory distraction are enhancing pharmaceutical methods.

80 Distractions are common during handoffs and may interfer

81 ory of how cognition is interrupted, and how distraction arises after surprising events.

82 Handoff quality was not diminished by distractions, as measured by handoff giver score (15.41

83 vioral scientist using 4 validated tools: OR Distractions Assessment Form, the Observational Teamwork

84 with increasing age, the ability to exclude distraction at encoding is a better predictor of WMC in

85 te these mechanisms by investigating whether distraction attenuates processing in the primary and sec

86 accuracy), Reaction Time test, Flanker task (distraction avoidance), and Rapid Visual Information Pro

87 earn, pause less often in the runway, resist distractions better, and proceed more directly to the go

88 rols who were given either distraction or no distraction between study and test.

89 cortex was modulated by bromocriptine during distraction but not during switching.

90 uracy and information capture due to reduced distraction, but with little loss of information compare

91 mance of a dual task that probed attentional distraction by alcohol-related stimuli during 'conflict'

92 ith the idea of cognitive impairments due to distraction by both parties.

93 traction by location more posterior than the distraction by frequency, providing support for the dual

94 attended to frequency and location, with the distraction by location more posterior than the distract

95 that working memory is crucial for reducing distraction by maintaining the prioritization of relevan

96 uptions from threat-induced anxiety and goal distraction by modulating activity in regions involved i

97 e suppression of the previous set to prevent distraction by objects that are no longer relevant.

98 downregulated, to reduce the propensity for distraction by pleasurable stimuli or the capacity to ex

99 of upcoming events, and more susceptible to distraction by stimuli at irrelevant locations.

100 mance, and they suggest that the presence of distraction can bias this competition.

101 Adding a source of distraction caused unrefreshed information to be lost at

102 in a simulated drive under 3 conditions (no distraction, cell phone conversation, and texting).

103 icipation inpatient communication, amusement/distraction, comfort, personal care, breathing, mobiliza

104 (i.e., intensity of distress, self-soothing, distraction, communicative behaviours; n.

105 as highly active at retrieval on trials with distraction compared with trials without distraction.

106 gray was significantly increased during the distraction condition, and the total increase in activat

107 During the distraction condition, subjects rated the pain intensity

108 rmance Test, 1-9 version, with and without a distraction condition, to study 147 patients with schizo

109 elays as well as in DNMS lengthened list and distraction conditions.

110 Equipment-related distractions correlated with higher stress (r = 0.48, P

111 Acoustic distractions correlated with higher stress in surgeons (

112 mental sessions, but the momentary degree of distraction could be predicted in advance by pretrial ac

113 Thus, mandibular distraction decreases condylar mineral apposition rates,

114 servations deepen our understanding of how a distraction, depending on its characteristics, can eithe

115 that the ability to prevent salience-driven distraction depends on the current level of attentional

116 Distraction did not affect this insular sweetness respon

117 However, distractions did not negatively affect the quality of re

118 se of this study was to examine how auditory distraction differentially affects task-associated respo

119 d the patients were intact on tasks in which distraction disrupted control performance.

120 igm with younger adults revealed that visual distraction disrupted recollection of relevant details t

121 ltitask situations, suggesting that, even if distraction does not decrease the overall level of learn

122 mory representations gain resistance against distraction during a period of active maintenance within

123 The results showed that distraction during adaptation similarly modulates the TA

124 se results reveal a mechanism explaining how distraction during consumption attenuates neural taste p

125 hlear transmission aids in ignoring auditory distraction during selective attention to visual stimuli

126 To prevent distraction during stressful situations, the capacity to

127 idered to play an important role in reducing distraction during the processing of sensory input.

128 Sensory distraction during the WM maintenance phase did not diff

129 rtions of the central catheters by trainees, distractions during insertions, and high workload are th

130 our knowledge, this is the largest study of distractions during surgical resident handoffs.

131 ncreased activity in brain regions mediating distraction (e.g., auditory cortex) and in left prefront

132 Analysis supports both an age-related distraction effect and neural suppression deficit, and e

133 Behavioral results showed a distraction effect in which response times to distractor

134 fMRI results confirmed that this distraction effect not only fluctuated within experiment

135 ion, what the neural correlates of emotional distraction effects are, and whether such deficits are a

136 Expert analysts characterized intraoperative distractions, errors, and events, and measured trainee i

137 Instead, the influence that a distraction exerts upon performance is mediated by the t

138 intact at a 2-s delay but failed at longer, distraction-filled delays.

139 e left versus right dorsal frontal cortex to distraction filtering.

140 elated positively with behavioral indices of distraction-filtering (slowing when distracters might oc

141 enced proactive (blockwise) recruitment of a distraction-filtering mechanism.

142 oreover, right FEF implements adjustments in distraction-filtering mechanisms following recent encoun

143 plasty for severe laryngomalacia, mandibular distraction for micrognathia, tonsillectomy and/or adeno

144 ng provide the highest rotational torque and distraction forces, respectively, with the maximum exter

145 in impaction fractures and 2.5 mm +/- 2.4 in distraction fractures (P < .001).

146 more often missed on plain radiographs, and distraction fractures are more often missed on MR images

147 ures demonstrate prominent marrow edema, and distraction fractures demonstrate minimal edema.

148 On MR images, distraction fractures, including four of seven Segond fr

149 retrospectively to have caused impaction or distraction fractures, respectively.

150 ly while we varied the amount of cross-modal distraction from an irrelevant letter in the opposite mo

151 e-related memory declines are due in part to distraction from impaired inhibition of task-irrelevant

152 elect cues of a common origin while avoiding distraction from irrelevant inputs.

153 bias leads to increased negative arousal and distraction from other ongoing tasks.

154 the striatum during switching but not during distraction from relevant information in working memory.

155 Our results suggest that increased distraction from task-irrelevant input (auditory in this

156 Distractions from attending physicians, electronics, nur

157 asymmetry appears in crystalline materials, distractions from the mesoscopic ordering often causes i

158 olecules (DFO) administered in vivo into the distraction gap increased angiogenesis and markedly impr

159 The distraction greatly reduces the beauty and pleasure expe

160 The patients were impaired on tasks in which distraction had minimal effect on control performance, a

161 ility to focus or too much interference from distraction has not been clarified.

162 tion, proposed to suppress 'task irrelevant' distraction, has previously been demonstrated to correla

163 as placebo analgesia or pain relief through distraction highlight the powerful influence cognitive p

164 tion was generally increased under emotional distraction; however, bipolar patients exhibited a furth

165 ing explicit memory resources by attentional distraction improved perceptual recognition memory witho

166 The unconscious-thought effect occurs when distraction improves complex decision making.

167 lar mineralization is affected, we performed distraction in 128 one-month-old rapidly and 126 three-m

168 reaction times; (ii) the capacity to resist distraction in a visual search task; and (iii) the capac

169 tunity costs is questionable: The potency of distractions in real-life situations is not regularly re

170 Moreover, our study shows that such distraction-induced decreases in neural taste processing

171 Deficient cognitive control over emotional distraction is a central characteristic of major depress

172 A weakened ability to effectively resist distraction is a potential basis for reduced working mem

173 hyperalgesia elicited by painful facet joint distraction is associated with spinal neuronal hyperexci

174 The results also definitively show that distraction is detrimental to driver safety, with handhe

175 Moreover, in the case of GPs, distraction is likely to interfere with the adaptation p

176 The results suggest that when distraction is likely, a region in right frontal cortex

177 monstrate that during search salience-driven distraction is mitigated by a suppressive mechanism that

178 ation in everyday vision, VSTM storage under distraction is often required.

179 Here, we asked whether salience-driven distraction is prevented by suppressing salient distract

180 is control activity prevents salience-driven distraction is still poorly understood.

181 tion on task-relevant information and ignore distractions is reflected by differential enhancement an

182 These different levels of distraction led to differences in the regional patterns

183 Alternatively, distraction may be denied access to WM, with no suppress

184 Instead, the characteristics of the distraction may play a critical role in affecting human

185 Although some distractions may be inevitable in the OR, they can also

186 For the distraction measure, a positive component peaking at 250

187 During task performance, a significant distraction (noise or silence) by group (patient or cont

188 Auditory distractions occurred a median of 138 times per case [in

189 Distractions occurred in 54% of junior resident handoffs

190 s enhanced memory is resistant to the social distraction of an introduced second mouse, important for

191 Distraction of the disc space and fixation were achieved

192 ative disc disease is optimally treated with distraction of the disc space and permanent fusion of th

193 r relaxations result from passive mechanical distraction of the gastroesophageal junction.

194 Distraction of the periosteum results in the formation o

195 ation, most commonly from apical and lateral distraction of the subvalvular apparatus, with late annu

196 The impact of mandibular distraction on condyles is poorly understood.

197 he performance of patients and the effect of distraction on controls.

198 The effect of distraction on immediate intake appeared to be independe

199 There was no effect of distraction on SI activity (P < .05).

200 orkload to simulate the effect of anxiety or distraction on subjects performing visual field testing,

201 mine the potential effects of arousal and/or distraction on the timing of visual signals.

202 There is little research on the effect of distractions on surgical team members' behavior and cogn

203 A deeper understanding of the effect of distractions on teams and their outcomes can lead to tar

204 obe damage to controls who were given either distraction or no distraction between study and test.

205 ask-relevant processing in the face of other distractions or other forms of interference, in the abse

206 enial: OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.07-1.64; and self-distraction: OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.07-1.59).

207 ugmentation was found with this technique of distraction osteogenesis for vertical ridge augmentation

208 While the technique of distraction osteogenesis has been successfully employed

209 Fracture healing and distraction osteogenesis have important applications in

210 bone of the corticotomy-treated animals and distraction osteogenesis in the osteotomy-assisted tooth

211 Distraction osteogenesis involves a three-step process i

212 y has systematically evaluated the effect of distraction osteogenesis on the gingival tissues.

213 To ascertain whether teeth move by distraction osteogenesis or by regional accelerated phen

214 Although distraction osteogenesis provides an attractive alternat

215 The technique of distraction osteogenesis resulted in an average vertical

216 uraging results regarding the translation of distraction osteogenesis technology from an animal model

217 Therefore, alternative treatments, such as distraction osteogenesis, could be a viable option to im

218 larity and produced more bone in response to distraction osteogenesis, whereas mice lacking HIF-1alph

219 ed with bone regeneration that occurs during distraction osteogenesis.

220 logenic block grafts, and the application of distraction osteogenesis.

221 processes directed at minimizing perceptual distraction, overcoming interference during short and lo

222 This result suggests that visual distraction overwhelms older adults' declining cognitive

223 owed no increased susceptibility to auditory distraction (P =.42).

224 es without distractions vs 21.5 minutes with distractions; P < .001) and minutes per patient (1.78 wi

225 nutes per patient (1.78 without vs 2.15 with distractions; P = .04).

226 nd receiver score (7.42 without vs 7.25 with distractions; P = .45).

227 off giver score (15.41 without vs 15.47 with distractions; P = .90) and receiver score (7.42 without

228 ion in OFC was more resilient to intervening distraction, paralleling previous findings regarding vis

229 onal state, degree of anxiety, attention and distraction, past experiences, memories, and many other

230 within approximately 8 to 10 weeks after the distraction period and the gingiva responds favorably to

231 ected to a 7-day latency period and a 10-day distraction period with a rate of 0.1 mm/day.

232 n at the host bone margins at the end of the distraction period, followed by a progressive increase i

233 rier membrane were observed laterally to the distraction plate at 2 weeks (1.22 +/- 0.64 versus 0.55

234 luence the contribution of the periosteum, a distraction plate with perforations was used alone or co

235 At the periphery of the distraction plate, significant differences in bone heigh

236 ve component peaking at 250 ms was found - a distraction positivity.

237 and unrehearsed information with a source of distraction present were calculated.

238 ctors (i.e., error, impairment, fatigue, and distraction) present in almost 90% of crashes.

239 , and how they are orchestrated depending on distraction probability, thereby aiding task performance

240 o complications affecting the outcome of the distraction procedure.

241 Only painful facet joint distraction produced a significant increase (p<0.001) in

242 Painful distraction produced immediate behavioral hypersensitivi

243 ased subsequent ad libitum food intake after distraction (r = 0.36).

244 The surgical technique, latency period, distraction rate, and consolidation period are reviewed.

245 and its functional consequences, not to the distraction rate.

246 4 in slowly growing rats (p < 0.05); and (3) distraction rates had little effect on mineral appositio

247 ptimization, it was revealed that additional distraction reactions, where inactivated proteases becom

248 ree groups: 'support' (e.g. problem-solving, distraction, reassurance) 'non-physical control' (e.g. r

249 Moreover, individual differences in distraction-related attenuation of taste activation in t

250 distracters might occur) and negatively with distraction-related behavioral costs (incongruent vs con

251 es that was driven by selectively diminished distraction-related errors.

252 WM components (memory load, maintenance, and distraction resistance) to performance.

253 Distraction resulted in a significant attenuation of thi

254 Here we evaluate the neural basis of distraction's negative impact on WM and the impairment i

255 height were found between the hinge and the distraction screw for the group without barrier membrane

256 raction, engagement with nature, relaxation, distraction, sensory stimulation, physical activity, alt

257 Far from being a random or meaningless distraction, spontaneous cognition during states of slee

258 hout this allele demonstrated an immunity to distraction, such that response times were unaffected by

259 In contrast, the distraction task resulted in reduced activity in a more

260 We used a novel saccadic distraction task to quantify the speed and accuracy of b

261 the counting Stroop, was used as a cognitive distraction task whilst subjects received intermittent p

262 uman observers performed a novel cross-modal distraction task, we demonstrated that syntactic violati

263 ikely to occur with low- than high-demanding distraction tasks.

264 ified as encouraging such as Namaste Care or distraction techniques.

265 may not be just the presence or absence of a distraction that affects motor performance.

266 Music is a form of distraction that may alleviate some of the pain and dist

267 After arithmetic distraction, the DLPF and ST were engaged in arithmetic

268 At retrieval of verbal items after the distraction, the DLPF, ST and Broca's area were also act

269 After distraction, the regenerates were allowed to consolidate

270 wer treatment options include relaxation and distraction therapies as well as medications.

271 Following ES during distraction, there was a significant linear trend (P < .

272 When pain was delivered during distraction, there was a significant reduction in pain r

273 ntrol mechanisms are engaged to suppress the distraction they cause.

274 ident until day 7 and only following painful distraction; this increase was observed in small-diamete

275 y of schizophrenic subjects to same-modality distraction to determine whether patients fit a "bitempo

276 rials, retrieval was tested after arithmetic distraction to interrupt rehearsal of the remembered ver

277 ormation gradually increased from the end of distraction to the fourth week of consolidation, at whic

278 Adding a source of distraction to well-rehearsed information produced a nor

279 Distraction typically has a negative impact on memory fo

280 The present study investigated the nature of distraction upon the neural correlates of WM maintenance

281 the comparison group for the more difficult distraction version of the Continuous Performance Test.

282 ed events, including perhaps how they induce distraction via global suppression.

283 were shorter in length (13.2 minutes without distractions vs 21.5 minutes with distractions; P < .001

284 The rate of distraction was 0.0 mm (sham), 0.2 mm (slow), 0.4 mm (mo

285 Decreased distraction was also achieved, consistent with the 3-9-f

286 use, lesion size, mood, fatigue, or whether distraction was tested during motor or nonmotor cognitiv

287 l skills, and a high amount of environmental distractions were identified using the OR Black Box.

288 Bilateral C6/C7 facet joint distractions were imposed in the rat either to produce b

289 Distractions were more common during evening than mornin

290 Distractions were present in 102 resident handoffs (48%)

291 The number and types of distractions were recorded.

292 Handoffs without distractions were shorter in length (13.2 minutes withou

293 The most prevalent distractions were those initiated by external staff, fol

294 Distractions were very common during handoffs; they were

295 istraction, along with 2 measures with added distraction, were completed.

296 ore involved in the retrieval of faces after distraction, whereas a parahippocampal-medial entorhinal

297 iated with deficits in the ability to ignore distractions, which has not yet been remediated by any n

298 Thirty-five percent of handovers had distractions, which included competing demands for nurse

299 Cell phone conversation, texting, and no distraction while driving.

300 bition" (PPI), appears to function to reduce distraction while processing sensory input.