MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075036934 · doi:10.1167/7.9.669

Direction specific impairments of spatial working memory as a consequence of saccadic remapping

2010· article· en· W2075036934 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadic maskingWorking memoryStimulus (psychology)NeglectFixation (population genetics)Cognitive psychologyEye movementPsychologySpatial memoryComputer scienceNeuroscienceCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most common impairments resulting from right parietal stroke is a disorder called visuospatial neglect, in which patients behave as if half their world has ceased to exist. Current theoretical attempts to explain neglect have suggested that, in addition to attentional biases, these patients also demonstrate impairments of spatial working memory and/or spatial remapping. These two mechanisms are closely related in that they are critically important for maintaining and updating spatial representations in our environment. We examined the influence of saccadic remapping processes on spatial working memory in a group of healthy individuals. Participants first had to determine the presence or absence of a target (a circle with a small segment removed) presented amongst distractor stimuli (full circles). On trials in which a target was detected, a probe stimulus then appeared, following a brief delay (1 sec). Participants had to indicate whether or not the probe occupied the location of the previously detected target stimulus. Critically, we manipulated fixation during the delay condition such that fixation could remain static or could move to the left, right, up or down. These four shift conditions required the participant to remap the target display in order to make accurate decisions concerning the spatial location of the probe. Performance for judging the spatial location of the probe was best when central fixation was maintained. Interestingly, decrements in SWM (i.e. accurately matching the target location with the probe) were only observed when saccadic remapping was executed into right or lower visual space. This suggests that saccadic remapping processes interact with SWM processes in specific ways that may be related to both hemispheric biases in attention for changes induced by lateral remapping, and differences in personal versus extrapersonal space for changes induced by vertical remapping.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.262 · 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