MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972228118 · doi:10.1167/3.9.593

Visuo-perceptual abilities in patients with atypical Alzheimer's Disease

2010· article· en· W1972228118 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Fernandez‐Duque, Sandra E. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosterior cortical atrophyPsychologyPerceptionCognitive psychologyPerceptual DisordersStimulus (psychology)AudiologyLateralization of brain functionNeglectNeuroscienceVisual perceptionMedicineDiseasePathologyDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the spatial attention and visuo-perceptual abilities of two patients with atypical Alzheimer's disease. Neuroimaging revealed hypoperfusion in parietal, posterior temporal, and lateral occipital cortex. In patient R.D, who exhibited neglect and extinction, hypoperfusion was lateralized to the right hemisphere. In patient M.M., who had no spatial neglect, hypoperfusion was left lateralized. Both patients were impaired in the copying and matching of simple shapes, but recognition of more complex figures was relatively preserved. A 2-AFC task assessed the patients' ability to perceive two objects at the same time. In this task, two concentric figures (e.g., a circle and a square) were briefly displayed. When the figures were displayed sequentially, patients correctly reported whether the shapes were the same (e.g., two circles), or not (e.g., a circle and a square). In contrast, performance was close to chance when the figures were displayed simulatenously. This simultanagnosia may stem from a deficit in spatial attention. To explore this possibility, in a follow-up study two concentric figures were displayed, and patients had to report the shape of one of them (i.e., the target). In separate blocks, the feature that defined the target was either spatial (e.g., the ‘large’ figure) or non-spatial (e.g., the ‘black’ figure). Spatial cues led to more accurate performance than non-spatial cues. This result is consistent with an attentional account of simultanagnosia, by which patients can attend to a selected stimulus, but have difficulties disengaging from it.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207