Visual Puzzles, Figure Weights, and Cancellation: Some Preliminary Hypotheses on the Functional and Neural Substrates of These Three New WAIS-IV Subtests
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
In this study, five consecutive patients with focal strokes and/or cortical excisions were examined with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Wechsler Memory Scale-Fourth Editions along with a comprehensive battery of other neuropsychological tasks. All five of the lesions were large and typically involved frontal, temporal, and/or parietal lobes and were lateralized to one hemisphere. The clinical case method was used to determine the cognitive neuropsychological correlates of mental rotation (Visual Puzzles), Piagetian balance beam (Figure Weights), and visual search (Cancellation) tasks. The pattern of results on Visual Puzzles and Figure Weights suggested that both subtests involve predominately right frontoparietal networks involved in visual working memory. It appeared that Visual Puzzles could also critically rely on the integrity of the left temporoparietal junction. The left temporoparietal junction could be involved in temporal ordering and integration of local elements into a nonverbal gestalt. In contrast, the Figure Weights task appears to critically involve the right temporoparietal junction involved in numerical magnitude estimation. Cancellation was sensitive to left frontotemporal lesions and not right posterior parietal lesions typical of other visual search tasks. In addition, the Cancellation subtest was sensitive to verbal search strategies and perhaps object-based attention demands, thereby constituting a unique task in comparison with previous visual search tasks.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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