Direction specific impairments of spatial working memory as a consequence of saccadic remapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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".