Improving left spatial neglect through music scale playing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study assessed whether the auditory reference provided by a music scale could improve spatial exploration of a standard musical instrument keyboard in right-brain-damaged patients with left spatial neglect. As performing music scales involves the production of predictable successive pitches, the expectation of the subsequent note may facilitate patients to explore a larger extension of space in the left affected side, during the production of music scales from right to left. Eleven right-brain-damaged stroke patients with left spatial neglect, 12 patients without neglect, and 12 age-matched healthy participants played descending scales on a music keyboard. In a counterbalanced design, the participants' exploratory performance was assessed while producing scales in three feedback conditions: With congruent sound, no-sound, or random sound feedback provided by the keyboard. The number of keys played and the timing of key press were recorded. Spatial exploration by patients with left neglect was superior with congruent sound feedback, compared to both Silence and Random sound conditions. Both the congruent and incongruent sound conditions were associated with a greater deceleration in all groups. The frame provided by the music scale improves exploration of the left side of space, contralateral to the right hemisphere, damaged in patients with left neglect. Performing a scale with congruent sounds may trigger at some extent preserved auditory and spatial multisensory representations of successive sounds, thus influencing the time course of space scanning, and ultimately resulting in a more extensive spatial exploration. These findings offer new perspectives also for the rehabilitation of the disorder.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".