A Review of Lynn C. Robertson's (2004) “Space, Objects, Minds, and Brains”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Dr Robertson alludes to despite the fact that ‘‘what’ ’ and ‘‘where’’ have entered colloquial language sur-prisingly little has been published on how these 2 pathways could possibly interact to define space and objects. Moreover, this well-accepted dicho-tomy is questioned implicitly from a functional standpoint. Robertson’s theoretical text proposes that spaces and objects are nested within hier-archical space-object representation reference frames that interact at the most basic levels of perception. Her thesis is that contemporary under-standing of object and space percep-tual organization continuums and processes should be redefined. Her treatise is convincingly presented through selective review of the litera-ture pertaining to functional neuro-imaging, single, and group lesion analysis studies highlighting the rich explanatory role of Balint syndrome in particular. In Chapter 1, Balint syndrome is examined. Balint syndrome consists of the triad of ocular apraxia, optic ataxia, and simultanagnosia symp-toms. This unique and rare syndrome is currently being reevaluated in the literature as an important means of studying object-based and space-based attentional systems with contemporary cognitive neuropsycho-logic paradigms and techniques. In this situation an object can be per-ceived however it may not be able to be located such that the external space outside of bodily awareness seems fragmented to the patient. We are presented with a theory that Carte-sian reference frames of objects and spaces do not necessarily follow the isomorphic rule of 3-dimensional in-variants of the outside world modeled one-to-one to the space-object repre-sentations of ones mind. Difficult concepts are well depicted by the inclusion of diagrammatic Gestaltist visual illusion examples and illustra-tions repeatedly presented throughout the text in tutorial format. Robertson introduces us to a new paradigm in
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".