Effect of Illiteracy on Neuropsychological Tests and Glucose Metabolism of Brain in Later Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The acquisition of literacy during childhood may affect the functional organization of the brain. We studied the effects of illiteracy on neuropsychological tests and brain glucose metabolism in later life. METHODS: We recruited 12 illiterate elderly farmers who never attended school and acquired no knowledge of reading or writing. These illiterate subjects were compared with literate subjects in terms of neuropsychological performance and brain glucose metabolism. All subjects were over 65 years and had same socioeconomic environment and normal activities of daily living. RESULTS: Neuropsychological tests indicated that the performance of illiterate subjects was worse than that of literate subjects in all cognitive domains with the exception of forward digit span, tool-use and tool-free gestures, and verbal generation of grocery items. The SPM analysis showed that illiterate subjects had reduced FDG-uptake relative to literate subjects, predominantly in the rostral part of the left superior frontal gyrus and less strikingly in the left rectal gyrus, right cerebellar declive, and right cerebellar tonsil. In contrast, hypermetabolism was found only in the left precuneus. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that reading and writing during childhood is associated with activation of the frontal pole that may play a critical role in complex aspects of human cognition.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".