A comparative neuropsychological test battery differentiates cognitive signatures of Fragile X and Down syndrome
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
BACKGROUND: Standardised neuropsychological and cognitive measures present some limitations in their applicability and generalisability to individuals with intellectual disability (ID). Alternative approaches to defining the cognitive signatures of various forms of ID are needed to advance our understanding of the profiles of strengths and weaknesses as well as the affected brain areas. AIM: To evaluate the utility and feasibility of six non-verbal comparative neuropsychological (CN) tasks administered in a modified version of the Wisconsin General Test Apparatus (WGTA) to confirm and extend our knowledge of unique cognitive signatures of Fragile X syndrome (FXS) and Down syndrome (DS). METHOD: A test battery of CN tasks adapted from the animal literature was administered in a modified WGTA. Tasks were selected that have established or emerging brain-behaviour relationships in the domains of visual-perceptual, visual-spatial, working memory and inhibition. RESULTS: Despite the fact that these tasks revealed cognitive signatures for the two ID groups, only some hypotheses were supported. Results suggest that whereas individuals with DS were relatively impaired on visual-perceptual and visual-spatial reversal learning tasks they showed strengths in egocentric spatial learning and object discrimination tasks. Individuals with FXS were relatively impaired on object discrimination learning and reversal tasks, which was attributable to side preferences. In contrast, these same individuals exhibited strengths in egocentric spatial learning and reversal tasks as well as on an object recognition memory task. Both ID groups demonstrated relatively poor performance for a visual-spatial working memory task. CONCLUSION: Performance on the modified WGTA tasks differentiated cognitive signatures between two of the most common forms of ID. Results are discussed in the context of the literature on the cognitive and neurobiological features of FXS and DS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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