MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058369697 · doi:10.1167/12.9.344

Load-induced transient perceptual neglect is insensitive to reference frame manipulations

2012· article· en· W2058369697 on OpenAlexaff
Davood G. Gozli, Kristin Wilson, Jay Pratt, Susanne Ferber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeglectStimulus (psychology)PerceptionPsychologyCognitive psychologyReference frameWorking memoryFrame of referenceVisual perceptionPerceptual DisordersAudiologyCommunicationComputer scienceCognitionNeuroscienceFrame (networking)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, Emrich, Burianová, and Ferber (2011) reported that high visual working memory (VWM) load can induce a neglect-like disadvantage in object recognition, confined to the viewer’s left hemifield. The authors suggested that inhibition of the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) which results from high VWM load causes interference with selecting objects from the left side of space. This explanation fits well with the role of TPJ lesions in causing visual neglect. But is the nature of this transient, load-induced perceptual neglect similar to the neglect behaviour observed in patient populations? One way to address this question is to test the sensitivity of this transient neglect to manipulations of spatial reference frames. Neglect patients show deficits not only in retino-centric reference frames, but also in stimulus-centered reference frames. To determine if load-induced transient neglect is also sensitive to stimulus-centred reference frames, we used a change-detection task containing conceptual cues (e.g., ‘left’, ‘above’) to probe a memory item on each trial. Critically, subjects were told to interpret the cues within a particular reference frame (rotated 0°, 90°, or 180° from the retino-centric frame) fixed throughout an entire block. Performance on the change-detection task served as a manipulation check to monitor subjects' ability to maintain the stimulus-based reference frame. Object recognition stimuli were presented on 30% of trials, bilaterally, allowing a comparison between both the retino-centric and stimulus-centered left and right. Results suggest that load-induced transient neglect is only a function of the retino-centric reference frame and does not depend on higher-order reference frames. Importantly, these results suggest that load-induced perceptual neglect does not capture the full extent of visual neglect symptoms and is primarily due to inhibited visual encoding. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207