Neglecting the Left Side of a City Square but Not the Left Side of Its Clock: Prevalence and Characteristics of Representational Neglect
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
Representational neglect, which is characterized by the failure to report left-sided details of a mental image from memory, can occur after a right hemisphere lesion. In this study, we set out to verify the hypothesis that two distinct forms of representational neglect exist, one involving object representation and the other environmental representation. As representational neglect is considered rare, we also evaluated the prevalence and frequency of its association with perceptual neglect. We submitted a group of 96 unselected, consecutive, chronic, right brain-damaged patients to an extensive neuropsychological evaluation that included two representational neglect tests: the Familiar Square Description Test and the O'Clock Test. Representational neglect, as well as perceptual neglect, was present in about one-third of the sample. Most patients neglected the left side of imagined familiar squares but not the left side of imagined clocks. The present data show that representational neglect is not a rare disorder and also support the hypothesis that two different types of mental representations (i.e. topological and non-topological images) may be selectively damaged in representational neglect.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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