MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973894096 · doi:10.1167/9.8.1163

Implicit processing of obstacles for immediate but not delayed reaching in a case of hemianopic blindsight

2010· article· en· W1973894096 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher L. Striemer, Christopher S. Chapman, Melvyn A. Goodale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlindsightVisual fieldFixation (population genetics)ObstaclePsychologyVision for perception and vision for actionPerceptionDorsumObstacle avoidanceBlind spotVisual spaceNeuroscienceVisual perceptionVisual cortexN2pcCognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineAnatomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When we reach towards an object we are easily able to avoid potential obstacles located within our reach path. Previous research suggests that obstacle avoidance can operate even in the absence of visual awareness. Specifically, patients with right parietal damage who demonstrate a profound lack of awareness for the left side of space are nevertheless able to avoid obstacles they are unaware of. This suggests that obstacle avoidance is governed by the dorsal stream which regulates visuomotor control independently from the ventral stream which enables conscious visual perception. One important question that remains unanswered concerns the visual inputs necessary for obstacle avoidance to occur. Specifically, the dorsal stream receives input from primary visual cortex (i.e. V1) as well as subcortical visual pathways that bypass V1 (e.g. the retinotectopulvinar and retinopulvinar pathways). In the current study we examined obstacle avoidance in CB, a patient who suffered a right occipital stroke resulting in a dense left visual field hemianopia. In the first experiment CB was required to reach to a target region while avoiding obstacles that were located in his right (sighted) or left (blind) visual field, or both fields. The results indicated that the endpoints of CB's reaches were significantly modulated by the position of obstacles placed in his blind field. Specifically, obstacles in the blind field that were placed closer to fixation ‘pushed’ his reach endpoints further rightward compared to obstacles in his blind field that were placed further away from fixation. In a second experiment, CB's sensitivity to the same obstacles in his blind field was completely abolished when a short 2-second delay was introduced prior to reach onset (compared to healthy sighted individuals who continued to avoid the obstacles). These data provide compelling evidence that the dorsal stream controls obstacle avoidance in real-time, independent of inputs from V1.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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