A visual target in the blind hemifield of hemidecorticate patients reduces latency and improves accuracy of antisaccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is thought that the phenomenon of blindsight in hemidecorticate patients requires the superior colliculus (SC), which appears viable after a hemispherectomy. Using a task that maximally solicits the SC, we investigated whether an unseen target in the blind hemifield can alter the timing/amplitude of an ongoing antisaccade in a hemidecorticate patient. Each trial began with a central fixation point that was extinguished, followed by a brief (86ms) light spot (cue) in the seeing hemifield. The patient was required to make a saccade away from the cue to its mirror location (antisaccade). The cue was presented either alone, or was accompanied by a flashed probe (86ms) at the cue's mirror location in the blind hemifield. The probe was presented simultaneously with the cue, or after random delays of 86ms, 136ms, or 186ms. We found that for delays of 86ms and greater there was a significant reduction in the latencies of antisaccades. A reduction in the error of the antisaccade was found, which was most pronounced at delays of 136ms and 186ms. At these delays the error was reduced by half relative to the no-probe condition. A recent study showed a correlation between behavioral choice and an ipsi-lesional neural activity in the SC of monkeys' with V1 lesions (Yoshida et al., 2007). Thus, our findings suggest that the presentation of a light stimulus at the goal position, after a cue has already been presented, increases neuronal activity in the ipsi-lesional SC which adds to preparatory motor activity and drives the firing frequency over the threshold necessary for saccade generation to the probe position.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".