Direct effects of prismatic lenses on visuomotor control: an event‐related functional MRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to prisms has long been used to explore the control of visually guided actions primarily because adaptation requires the recalibration of misaligned reference frames due to perturbed visual input (i.e. eye-in-head and hand-centered reference frames must be realigned). To date, the only neuroimaging study to explore the direct effects of prisms on pointing used positron emission tomography and found increased activation only in right parietal cortex. We used event-related functional MRI to examine the effects of prisms on visuomanual pointing. Results demonstrated changes in activity in the anterior cingulate, the anterior intraparietal region and in a medial region of the right cerebellum. Specifically, activity in these regions was higher for the first few pointing trials made while viewing targets through prisms when directly contrasted to the last few trials. These results highlight that a more extensive network of cortical and cerebellar regions is involved in recalibrating visuomotor commands in the face of perturbed visual input.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".