Rapid Adaptation of Visual Search in Simulated Hemianopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with homonymous hemianopia have altered visual search patterns, but it is unclear how rapidly this develops and whether it reflects a strategic adaptation to altered perception or plastic changes to tissue damage. To study the temporal dynamics of adaptation alone, we used a gaze-contingent display to simulate left or right hemianopia in 10 healthy individuals as they performed 25 visual search trials. Visual search was slower and less accurate in hemianopic than in full-field viewing. With full-field viewing, there were improvements in search speed, fixation density, and number of fixations over the first 9 trials, then stable performance. With hemianopic viewing, there was a rapid shift of fixation into the blind field over the first 5-7 trials, followed by continuing gradual improvements in completion time, number of fixations, and fixation density over all 25 trials. We conclude that in the first minutes after onset of hemianopia, there is a biphasic pattern of adaptation to altered perception: an early rapid qualitative change that shifts visual search into the blind side, followed by more gradual gains in the efficiency of using this new strategy, a pattern that has parallels in other studies of motor learning.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".