Hemispheric differences in the human lateral geniculate nucleus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Human brain asymmetry has been observed in previous studies and been related to a normal specialization of functional roles. Greater asymmetry between hemispheres has been associated with increased capabilities, such as enhanced processing auditory features, while smaller asymmetry has been linked to decreased capabilities, like dyslexia. Here we investigate hemispheric differences in the human lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), a visual relay and control nucleus in the thalamus. Methods 26 subjects (13 controls and 13 subjects with dyslexia) were scanned with a Siemens Trio 3T MRI scanner. For each subject, 40 proton density weighted images were acquired with a resolution of 0.75 ´ 0.75 ´ 1 mm[sup]3[/sup]. The LGN were traced manually on these images by six independent observers. The median masks of right and left LGN of all subjects from each population were registered according to their centers of mass and averaged to create four probability maps. The left maps were then reflected for comparison with the right ones. Finally, we determined the principal axis of orientation of the LGN by fitting a plane through it that minimized the perpendicular distance from each point of the LGN to the plane. We then obtained the inclination angle of this plane in the subjects’ native spaces and compared the orientations between hemispheres. Results The difference in probability maps revealed morphological differences between the left and right LGN. The orientations of the LGN in the two hemispheres differed by 23.9 ± 5.4° (mean ± SEM), which was highly significant (p = .003). The right LGN was oriented more vertically in the coronal plane and the left more horizontally. There were no significant differences between dyslexics and controls. Conclusions We have observed previously unreported asymmetries in the morphology and orientation of the human LGN between hemispheres. The functional implications of these differences are unknown. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".