Lack of anticipatory gaze-orienting responses in patients with right brain damage
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".