ライフサイエンスコーパス: distraction

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

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

3 evolutionary conflict dictates the degree of distraction.

4 eficial for new bone formation in periosteal distraction.

5 for new bone formation induced by periosteal distraction.

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

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

8 eactivation for the retrieval of faces after distraction.

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

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

11 re involved in the retrieval of scenes after distraction.

12 rocessing stimuli in our environment despite 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 fth time, during painful stimulation without distraction.

20 vation was associated with the inhibition of distraction.

21 goal-relevant information in the presence of distraction.

22 nability both to focus on targets and ignore distraction.

23 y systems in their sensitivity to concurrent distraction.

24 oid joint and bipartite os peroneum fragment distraction.

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

26 ciated with correct memory performance after distraction.

27 ith distraction compared with trials without distraction.

28 uld not maintain the verbal items during the distraction.

29 plants that were placed and loaded following distraction.

30 delay of a spatial working memory task with distraction.

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

32 rally relevant visual stimuli while ignoring distraction.

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

34 and they lead to motor slowing and cognitive distraction.

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

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

37 ween internally generated goals and external distractions.

38 tentional mechanisms for inhibiting expected distractions.

39 op is intermittently severed by sensorimotor distractions.

40 rate the resilience of surgical residents to distractions.

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

42 that matters, while ignoring a cacophony of distractions.

43 working memory while challenged by incoming distractions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

53 Mental distraction and auditory stress negatively affect specif

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 Distractions are common during handoffs and may interfer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

92 During the distraction condition, subjects rated the pain intensity

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

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

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

96 Acoustic distractions correlated with higher stress in surgeons (

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

98 Thus, mandibular distraction decreases condylar mineral apposition rates,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

109 To prevent distraction during stressful situations, the capacity to

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

111 Sensory distraction during the WM maintenance phase did not diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

135 Distractions from attending physicians, electronics, nur

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

137 The distraction greatly reduces the beauty and pleasure expe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

162 For the distraction measure, a positive component peaking at 25

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

164 Distractions occurred in 54% of junior resident handoffs

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

166 Distraction of the disc space and fixation were achieved

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

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

169 Distraction of the periosteum results in the formation o

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

182 While the technique of distraction osteogenesis has been successfully employed

183 Fracture healing and distraction osteogenesis have important applications in

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

185 Distraction osteogenesis involves a three-step process i

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

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

188 Although distraction osteogenesis provides an attractive alternat

189 The technique of distraction osteogenesis resulted in an average vertical

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

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

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

193 ed with bone regeneration that occurs during distraction osteogenesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

210 e component peaking at 250 ms was found - a distraction positivity.

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

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

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

214 o complications affecting the outcome of the distraction procedure.

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

216 Painful distraction produced immediate behavioral hypersensitivi

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

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

219 4 in slowly growing rats (p < 0.05); and (3) distraction rates had little effect on mineral appositio

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

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

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

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

224 Distraction resulted in a significant attenuation of thi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

238 After distraction, the regenerates were allowed to consolidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

248 Distraction typically has a negative impact on memory fo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

257 Distractions were more common during evening than mornin

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

259 The number and types of distractions were recorded.

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

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

262 Distractions were very common during handoffs; they were

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

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

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

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

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

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