Prism adaptation reduces the 'disengage deficit' in right brain damage patients
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
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 which are 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 to a group of healthy controls (N=26) 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. This provides for the first time, a cognitive mechanism by which prism adaptation may aid patients with neglect. Furthermore, the current results suggest that prism adaptation may also be useful for rehabilitating spatial deficits in right brain damage patients without 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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