Posterior Cortical Atrophy: An investigation of grasping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At last year's VSS meeting (journalofvision.org/9/8/1095/) we presented a patient with posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) who demonstrated a severe deficit in face recognition, problems interpreting and reproducing line drawings of common objects, simultanagnosia, and colour hallucinations. Despite these perceptual difficulties, she was able to accurately guide her hand to stable grasp sites on irregularly-shaped objects, and she showed appropriate grip scaling during reach-to-grasp movements. It has been suggested that such symptomatology represents a ‘ventral’ form of PCA, in which damage is predominantly restricted to occipitotemporal areas (Ross et al., 1996). The current study explored the visuomotor abilities of three patients with PCA in relation to their perceptual deficits. In one experiment, subjects were presented with two asymmetrical, irregularly-shaped objects and asked whether they were the same or different. They were then prompted to reach out and pick up one of these objects. We found that PCA patients unanimously performed worse on the object discrimination task than age- and gender-matched controls, yet they executed accurate grasps to these same objects. In another experiment, subjects had to reach out and pick up simple, rectangular blocks under free-viewing (closed-loop), no-vision (immediate open-loop), and delay conditions. Control subjects appropriately scaled their grasps in accordance with block size under all task conditions. In contrast, PCA patients scaled effectively during closed-loop and immediate open-loop conditions, but lost this ability following a three second delay. Previous work has demonstrated that introducing a delay in a grasping task forces visuomotor systems to rely on a stored ‘percept’ of the target object retrieved from the ventral stream (Goodale et al., 1994), which our patients clearly lack. This study supports the idea that PCA may include two unique variants - ‘dorsal’ and ‘ventral’ PCA, and reinforces the findings that there are separate neural pathways that mediate vision-for-perception and vision-for-action.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".