MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017987916 · doi:10.1167/9.8.404

The global effect induced by "blind" distractors in visual hemifield defects

2010· article· en· W2017987916 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Van der Stigchel, Tanja C.W. Nijboer, Douwe P. Bergsma, Mathias Abegg, Jason J.S. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadic maskingVisual fieldBlindsightPsychologyEye movementAudiologyVisual processingNeuroscienceVisual perceptionCognitive psychologyPerceptionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual information in blind regions may still be processed in patients with hemifield defects after cerebral lesions (“blindsight”). Recently, we tested the hypothesis that, in the absence of retinogeniculostriate processing, residual retinotectal processing may still be detected as modifications of saccades to seen targets by irrelevant distractors in the blind hemifield (Van der Stigchel et al., 2008). Patients with hemifield defects were presented with distractors in both the blind and intact visual field and participants were instructed to make eye movements to targets in the intact field. Eye movements were recorded to determine if blind-field distractors caused deviation in saccadic trajectories. In one of these experiments, two patients were tested with the target and the distractor closely aligned. Both patients showed saccades that deviated toward the blind-field distractor (i.e. global effect). This finding might be a typical phenomenon in patients with hemifield defects. Here we present four new cases in which we tested with the same paradigm whether a distractor presented in the blind visual field induces a global effect when target and distractor are closely aligned. Results showed that the blind-field distractor did not cause a deviation in saccadic trajectories in two of the four patients, although the distractor in the intact field caused a consistent global effect. Interestingly, in the two patients in whom an effect of a blind-field distractor was observed, the direction of the deviation was different from the previous study as eye movements deviated away from the blind-field distractor. Whereas this study again confirms that distractor effects on saccadic trajectories can occur in some patients with damage to the retinogeniculostriate visual pathway but preserved retinotectal projections, it reveals that the direction of this effect differs between patients, reflecting differences in oculomotor inhibition of blind-field distractors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207