First Saccades Reveal Biases in Recovered Neglect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemispatial neglect affects the ability to explore space on the side opposite a brain lesion. This deficit is also mirrored in abnormal saccadic eye movement patterns. The present study investigated if the recovery of neglect is also reflected in saccadic eye movements. Patient AF, who displayed strong hemispatial neglect 1 month post-right thalamic stroke, had largely recovered 3 months later when tested on visual exploration tasks of the Behavioural Inattention Test. At this stage, AF was tested on a visual search task while his eye movements (direction, latencies and amplitudes of first saccades) and manual reaction times were recorded. The experimental conditions differed with respect to stimulus number and distracter type and increased in difficulty. AF correctly generated saccades into the neglected field when the target was presented alone. In contrast, a considerable left/right difference was present for all multiple-stimulus search displays. Although recovered from neglect in standardized assessment, AF showed a strong rightward bias resulting in highly asymmetric response times and eye movement behaviour. We conclude that eye movement patterns are far more susceptible to remaining spatial impairments and can thus provide a sensitive means to assess the extent of neglect recovery.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".