Unitary attention in callosal agenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interhemispheric organisation of two specific components of attention was investigated in three patients affected by partial or complete agenesis of the corpus callosum. A visuospatial component of attention was explored using a visual search paradigm in which target and distractors were displayed either unilaterally within a single visual hemifield, or bilaterally across both visual hemifields in light of prior work indicating that split-brain patients were twice as fast to scan bilateral displays compared to unilateral displays. A central component of attention was explored using a psychological refractory period (PRP) paradigm in which two visual stimuli were presented laterally at various stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs), with each stimulus associated with a different speeded two-alternative choice task. The stimulus-response compatibility in the second task was systematically manipulated in this paradigm, in light of prior work indicating that split-brain patients exhibited a close-to-normal PRP effect (i.e., slowing of the second response as SOA is decreased), with, however, abnormally decreasing effects of the manipulation of the response mapping on the second task speed as SOA was decreased. The present results showed that, although generally slower than normals in carrying out the two tasks, the performance of each of the three acallosal patients was formally equivalent to the performance of a matched control group of normal individuals. In the visual search task, the search rate of the acallosal patients was the same for unilateral and bilateral displays. Furthermore, in the PRP task, there was more mutual interference between the lateralised tasks for the acallosal patients than that evidenced in the performance of the matched control group. It is concluded that the visuospatial component and the central component of attention in agenesis of the corpus callosum are interhemispherically integrated systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".