Differential influences of prism adaptation on reflexive and voluntary covert attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has demonstrated some beneficial effects in patients with neglect using rightward shifting prismatic lenses. Despite a great deal of research exploring this effect, we know very little about the cognitive mechanisms underlying prism adaptation in neglect. We examined the possibility that prism adaptation influences visual attention by having healthy participants complete either a reflexive or a voluntary covert visual attention cuing paradigm before and after adaptation to leftward, rightward, or sham (no shift) prisms. The results for reflexive orienting demonstrated that a subset of participants with large cuing effects before prism adaptation were faster to reorient attention away from an invalid cue on the side of space opposite the prismatic shift post adaptation. For voluntary orienting, left prisms increased the efficiency of voluntary attention in both left and right visual space in participants with a small cuing effect before prism adaptation. In contrast, right prisms decreased the efficiency of voluntary attention in both left and right space for participants with a large cuing effect before prism adaptation. No significant effects were observed in the sham prism groups. These results suggest that prism adaptation may exert a variety of influences on attentional orienting mechanisms.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".