Lack of anticipatory gaze-orienting responses in patients with right brain damage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study eye movements during cervical proprioceptive stimulation by passive body rotation in darkness, with the head held stationary, in patients with right brain damage and hemineglect. BACKGROUND: At very low frequency, this stimulation is reported to produce an illusion of head turning in space and eye deviations directed opposite to trunk rotation (in the direction of the illusory head rotation). METHODS: Ten normal subjects and seven patients with unilateral cerebral lesions (five right brain-damaged patients with mild to moderate visuospatial neglect, two left brain-damaged patients without neglect) were included in the study. Subjects were seated on a rotating chair. Stimuli consisted of slow sinusoidal passive trunk rotations (+/-30 degrees, 0.01 Hz) while the head was fixed in space. RESULTS: Eye movements directed opposite to trunk rotation were typical for normal subjects and for left brain-damaged patients. In contrast, all right brain-damaged patients showed either eye movements in the direction of trunk rotation or no eye deviations at all. CONCLUSION: This result could characterize a lack of anticipatory coordinating gaze behavior in patients with right brain damage.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it