A case of developmental deep dyslexia: What's left is right
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
Cases of acquired deep dyslexia have not clearly and consistently supported any of the theoretical models. We report on a case of a 51-year-old right-handed female, L.S., with a developmental history of deep dyslexia in order to test the neuropsychological models using a visual half-field semantic priming paradigm. Word targets were primed either by a highly associated word (e.g., CLEAN-DIRTY), a weakly associated word (e.g., CLEAN-TIDY), or an unrelated word (e.g., CLEAN-FAMILY) projected to either the same or opposite visual field (VF) as the target. In normals, RVF-left hemisphere primes result in high associate priming regardless of target location (ipsilateral or contralateral to the prime), whereas LVF-right hemisphere primes produce both high and low associate priming across both target location conditions (Hutchinson, Whitman, Abeare & Raiter, 2003). In contrast, L.S. showed hyperpriming to both high and low associates only in the left hemisphere with inhibition of high associates in the right hemisphere. This case represents a variation of developmental deep dyslexia in which the patient's left hemisphere functions like a normal right hemisphere. However, the lack of exclusively high associate priming in the opposite (right) hemisphere may not provide the necessary narrowing of semantic activation necessary for normal reading and thus, may lead to semantic reading errors. Theoretical implications 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 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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