MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074567017 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e328338592f

Dissociating perceptual and motor effects of prism adaptation in neglect

2010· article· en· W2074567017 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsPrism adaptationNeglectPsychologyPerceptionNeuroscienceAdaptation (eye)Cognitive psychologyPerceptual DisordersDevelopmental psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineVisual perceptionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prism adaptation reduces some symptoms of neglect; however the mechanisms underlying such changes are poorly understood. We suggest that prisms influence neglect by acting on dorsal stream circuits subserving visuomotor control, with little influence on perceptual aspects of neglect. We examined prism adaptation in three neglect patients and a group of healthy controls on line bisection and landmark tasks. Neglect patients showed a dramatic reduction in the rightward bias for line bisection, but absolutely no change in their leftward bias on the landmark task, which is a perceptual equivalent to bisection. However, in controls, prisms produced 'neglect-like' deficits on both the line bisection and landmark tasks. These data suggest that prisms influence visually guided actions more so than perception in 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it