Examining the relationship between rightward visuo‐spatial bias and poor attention within the normal child population using a brief screening task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some previous studies have linked Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with a bias in spatial awareness away from the left. As genetic research suggests that ADHD may be better viewed as an extreme on a continuum rather than a distinct entity, here we examined this issue in boys from the normal population. METHOD: From an initial sample of 1811, two groups of boys characterised by very high (n = 58) or very low (n = 68) levels of ADHD-type behaviours were formed. The groups completed the spatially sensitive Line Bisection test and more general measures of (non-spatial) attention and intellectual function. RESULTS: Boys whose bisections were consistent with relative inattention to the left indeed had higher ratings of ADHD-type behaviours and performed significantly more poorly on tests of sustained attention and executive function than boys whose bisections were in the normal range. In contrast, boys who showed extreme bisections in the opposite direction were not unusual either in ratings or test performance. CONCLUSIONS: The results support an association between poor attention and a relative rightward bias in visual awareness that may stem from right hemisphere inefficiency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".