The 'automatic pilot' for the hand in patients with hemispatial neglect
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left hemispatial neglect manifests itself in a rightward bias in perceptual tasks, yet the presence of this neglect-specific bias in visuomotor control remains a matter of debate. Here we investigated the ability of neglect patients (compared to patients without neglect and healthy controls) to rapidly adjust or interrupt (stop) their ongoing reach in response to a rightward or leftward target jump. Although neglect patients successfully corrected their reaches towards the left and right target shifts, these corrections were significantly slowed for leftward jumps. Interestingly though, in the stop condition neglect patients performed involuntary corrections towards the leftward target, similarly to those seen for the control groups. Furthermore, and unexpectedly, we found that neglect patients were impaired at stopping their movements in response to target jumps towards both sides of space. We argue that, in contrast to optic ataxic patients, who suffered from lesions in their dorsal visual stream, neglect patients show an ‘automatic pilot’ for reaching, yet that this ‘pilot’ is markedly slowed when the target jumps in a leftward direction. We also suggest that the inability to stop an ongoing reach might be related to non-lateralized deficits in response inhibition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it