Inter- and Intra-hemispheric Processing of Visual Event-related Potentials in the Absence of the Corpus Callosum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interhemispheric differences of the N100 latency in visual evoked potentials have been used to estimate interhemispheric transfer time (e.g., Saron & Davidson, 1989). Recent work has also suggested that the P300 component could reflect the efficacy of interhemispheric transmission (Polich & Hoffman, 1998). The purpose of the present study was to study the differential role of the corpus callosum (CC) and anterior commissure (AC) in the interhemispheric propagation of these two electrophysiological components. Thus, the amplitude and latency distribution of the N100 and P300 components were analyzed using high-density electrical mapping in a subject with agenesis of CC but preservation of AC, a subject with agenesis of both CC and AC, and 10 neurologically intact control subjects. The task consisted of a modified visual oddball paradigm comprising one frequent and two rare stimuli, one presented on the same and the other on the opposite side of the frequent stimulus. Interhemispheric differences in latency were found for the N100 component in controls. However, in the acallosal subjects, this component was not identifiable in the indirectly stimulated hemisphere. In controls, no interhemispheric differences were observed in the distribution of the P300 latency and amplitude to rare and frequent stimuli. The distribution of the P300 amplitude in the acallosal subject with an AC was identical to that of the controls, whereas in the acallosal subject lacking the AC, the amplitude was greater in the hemisphere receiving the frequent stimuli, regardless of the visual hemifield in which the rare stimuli were presented. In both acallosal subjects, hemispheric differences in the P300 latency were observed, the latencies being shorter in the hemisphere directly stimulated for all categories of stimuli. These results suggest that the interhemispheric transfer of both the N100 and P300 components relies on the integrity of cortical commissures. Possible P300 generator sources are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".