MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028874154 · doi:10.1080/13554790500205413

Synaesthesia: Discordant<i>male</i>monozygotic twins

2005· article· es· W2028874154 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Smilek, Mike J. Dixon, Philip M. Merikle

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocase · 2005
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenetranceTraitMonozygotic twinPsychologyGeneticsDevelopmental psychologyBiologyPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grapheme-color synaesthesia, a condition in which achromatic graphemes elicit vivid experiences of color is believed to be a genetically determined trait. We describe a study of 10-year-old twin brothers who are physically identical in appearance but who have considerably different conscious experiences. A phenotypic analysis that measured the consistency of grapheme-color pairings over test-retest confirmed that one twin has grapheme-color synaesthesia and the other twin does not. A genotypic analysis using sixteen microsatellite loci confirmed that the twins are monozygotic. These findings are problematic for previous suggestions that synaesthesia is an X-linked dominant trait. At the very least, the findings show that the penetrance of the genotype for synaesthesia is incomplete and that any view suggesting that synaesthesia is simply an X-linked dominant trait is therefore also incomplete and possibly even incorrect. The findings also negate a previous suggestion, based on a study of female monozygotic twins, that discordance of synaesthesia in identical twins is due to X-inactivation. In general, the findings raise serious questions regarding whether it is possible at this time to establish the genetic contribution to synaesthesia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurocaseSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207