MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1526695018

Adaptive neural mechanism for Listing's law revealed in patients with sixth nerve palsy.

2002· article· en· W1526695018 on OpenAlexaff
Agnes Wong, Douglas Tweed, James Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Eye Disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye movementFixation (population genetics)MedicinePalsySixth nerve palsyAbducens nerveTorsion (gastropod)AnatomyOphthalmologyLawDiplopiaPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: During fixation and saccades, human eye movements obey Listing's law, which specifies the torsional eye position for each combination of horizontal and vertical eye positions. To study the mechanisms that implement Listing's law, the authors measured whether the law was violated in peripheral and central unilateral sixth nerve palsy. METHODS: Twenty patients with peripheral (13 chronic, 7 acute) sixth nerve palsy, 7 patients with central sixth nerve palsy caused by brainstem lesions, and 10 normal subjects were studied with scleral search coils. With the head immobile, subjects made saccades to a target that moved between straight ahead and eight eccentric positions. At each target position, fixation was maintained for 3 seconds before the next saccade. To quantify violations of Listing's law, we measured ocular torsion during fixation and during saccades, and compared it with the torsion predicted by the law. The SD of the differences between the predicted and measured torsion was called Listing deviation. RESULTS: Patients with central sixth nerve palsy had abnormal ocular torsion in both the paretic and nonparetic eyes, which violated Listing's law. During fixation, Listing deviation averaged 2.4 degrees in the paretic eye and 1.7 degrees in the nonparetic eye, compared with 0.8 degrees in normal control subjects (P < 0.05). During saccades, the Listing deviation averaged 2.7 degrees in the paretic eye, and 1.6 degrees in the nonparetic eye, compared with 0.8 degrees in normal control eyes (P < 0.05). Donders' law was also violated in both eyes of patients with central sixth nerve palsy. They showed an abnormally wide range of ocular torsion in any given gaze direction. In contrast, patients with acute peripheral palsy had abnormal ocular torsion only in the paretic eye. Listing deviation of the paretic eye averaged 2.3 degrees during fixation and 3.2 degrees during saccades (P < 0.05). Donders' law was obeyed in acute peripheral palsy. Patients with chronic peripheral sixth nerve palsy obeyed Listing's and Donders' laws during both fixation and saccades. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with central unilateral sixth nerve palsy have abnormal ocular torsion in both eyes, demonstrating that brainstem circuits normally participate in the maintenance of Listing's law. Eye movements in patients with acute peripheral sixth nerve palsy violate Listing's law, whereas those in patients with chronic peripheral palsy obey it, indicating that neural adaptation can restore Listing's law, even when the eye muscle remains abnormal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOphthalmology and Eye DisordersFrench-language works237,207