SPATIAL DEFICITS IN VISUOMOTOR CONTROL FOLLOWING RIGHT PARIETAL INJURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superior parietal cortex has been implicated in visuomotor guidance and is proposed to be specialised for action in the lower visual field and peripersonal space. Two patients, one with a right superior parietal lesion leading to optic ataxia (ME), and one with a lesion affecting right inferior parietal cortex (LH), were compared to elderly controls (n=8) and young controls (n=8) on a reciprocal pointing task with movements made in the near-far direction (i.e., sagittal plane) or right-left direction (i.e., fronto-parallel plane). In contrast to both control groups, who demonstrated a speed-accuracy trade-off in movement time and peak velocity, neither of the patients did. When the time spent post-peak velocity (represented as a percentage of total movement time) was examined, both patients demonstrated larger times post-peak velocity than controls for all movement directions. Furthermore, while rightward movements of the right hand had higher times post-peak velocity than leftward movements there were no directional patterns for near-far movements which contrasted with controls who had larger times post-peak velocity for near movements. The patient with the more superior lesion (ME) had the greatest difficulty with movements made back toward the body suggestive of a role for superior parietal cortex in the fine tuning of movements made in this region of space (i.e., personal or peripersonal space). In contrast, all directions of movement seemed to be equally affected in the patient with a more inferior lesion. These results are discussed in terms of the different roles played by inferior and superior parietal cortex in the control of visually guided movements.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".