Does size matter? The effect of different magnitudes of prismatic adaptation on perceptual and motor biases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that rightward shifting prismatic lenses can reduce symptoms of left spatial neglect in patients with right brain damage. This reduction in left neglect symptoms is thought to be related to the fact that rightward shifting prisms require the patient to adjust their movements leftward (i.e., towards the neglected field) to compensate for the rightward visual shift. Similarly, previous studies in healthy individuals have shown that adaptation to leftward shifting prisms, which induce a rightward adjustment in movements, can create "neglect-like" patterns of behaviour (i.e., a subtle rightward attentional bias) on tests of spatial attention and spatial biases. Critically, previous studies of prism adaptation in patients with neglect, and healthy individuals, have only examined the effects of a single magnitude of visual shift (typically 10°) on test performance. This leaves open the question as to whether or not larger magnitudes of visual shift will induce larger effects on tests of attention and spatial biases. To examine this question in healthy individuals (n=30) we compared the effects of 8.5° and 17° leftward shifting prisms on a manual line bisection task (i.e., bisecting a line in half using a pen), and a perceptual equivalent of the line bisection task (i.e., judging whether a bisection marker on a line is closer to the left or right end of the line). The results indicated that, for the manual line bisection task, there was a larger rightward shift in bisection performance following adaptation to 17° compared to 8.5° leftward shifting prisms. However, for the perceptual version of the bisection task, participants demonstrated an equivalent rightward shift in perceived midpoint regardless of the magnitude of leftward prism shift. These data are consistent with recent studies indicating that prism adaptation may have differential effects on motor compared to perceptual components of neglect. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".