MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043935841 · doi:10.1080/13554790601174146

A Left Attentional Bias in Chronic Neglect: A Case Study Using Temporal Order Judgments

2007· article· en· W2043935841 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurocase · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectAttentional biasPsychologyCognitive psychologyStimulus (psychology)Fixation (population genetics)AudiologyNeuroscienceCognitionMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies of left visuospatial neglect using temporal order judgments (TOJs) have reported a temporal advantage for a stimulus presented on the right of fixation. The present case study examines an individual who shows a left temporal advantage on TOJ tasks, despite classic left-sided neglect on other tasks and in self-report. Experiment 1 found a continued left advantage on TOJs when employing a novel red/blue TOJ task to reduce potential response bias. Phasic alerting tones presented prior to random trials in Experiment 2 did not improve the abnormal attentional bias, as has been reported in previous studies of neglect. The addition of unilateral trials mixed within bilateral trials in Experiment 3 reduced the observed left advantage, suggesting a flexible attentional focus and implicating a role for strategic endogenous attentional strategies in this individual. Some implications for our understanding of endogenous orienting and relevance to rehabilitation therapy are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.240 · 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