MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055531323 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e3280125670

Prism adaptation reduces the disengage deficit in right brain damage patients

2007· article· en· W2055531323 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

VenueNeuroreport · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrism adaptationNeglectPsychologyPrismAdaptation (eye)Unilateral neglectNeuroscienceCovertAttentional biasDevelopmental psychologyCognitionCognitive psychologyAudiologyMedicinePsychiatryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research has shown that prism adaptation alleviates some of the symptoms of neglect. Although prism adaptation can aid patients with neglect, the mechanisms underlying these benefits remain largely unknown. One way in which prisms may work is by altering attentional orienting mechanisms known to be impaired in neglect. To investigate this hypothesis, we tested four right brain damaged patients (two with neglect) on a reflexive covert attention task before and after rightward prism adaptation and compared them with a group of healthy controls who underwent sham prism adaptation. Results demonstrated that rightward prism adaptation reduced both the rightward attentional bias, and the disengage deficit in patients with right brain damage irrespective of the presence of neglect.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · 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