Covert Orienting in Three Etiologies of Congenital Hydrocephalus: The Effect of Midbrain and Posterior Fossa Dysmorphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covert orienting is related to the integrity of the midbrain, but the specificity of the relation is unclear. We compared covert orienting in three etiologies of congenital hydrocephalus (aqueductal stenosis [AS], Dandy-Walker malformation [DWM], and spina bifida myelomeningocele [SBM]--with and without tectal beaking) to explore the effects of midbrain and posterior fossa malformations. We hypothesized a stepwise order of group performance reflecting the degree of midbrain tectum dysmorphology. Performance on an exogenously cued covert orienting task was compared using repeated measures analysis of covariance, controlling for age. Individuals with SBM and tectal beaking demonstrated the greatest disengagement cost in the vertical plane, whereas individuals with AS performed as well as a typically developing (TD) group. Individuals with SBM but no tectal beaking and individuals with DWM showed greater disengagement costs in the vertical plane relative to the TD group, but better performance relative to the group with SBM and tectal beaking. Individuals with AS, DWM, and SBM and tectal beaking demonstrated poorer inhibition of return than TD individuals. Impairments in attentional disengagement in SBM are not attributable to the general effects of hydrocephalus, but are instead associated with specific midbrain anomalies that are part of the Chiari II malformation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".