Impairment of Gaze-centered Updating of Reach Targets in Bilateral Parietal–Occipital Damaged Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have suggested that internal updating of visuospatial targets in humans occurs in gaze-centered coordinates and takes place in the parietal and extrastriate cortices. We explored how information for reaching is updated in two patients with bilateral lesions in these areas. Subjects performed two visuomotor tasks: (i) a fixation reaching task, which began with the appearance of one of five fixation positions (varying eye positions) followed by a central reaching target. Subjects reached to the target while fixating on the presented fixation position (relative to gaze the target was always presented in the periphery); and (ii) a saccade reaching task, in which subjects foveated on the central reaching target, then made a saccade to the presented fixation position before reaching to the central target. In both tasks, subjects reached to targets after a 500 or 5000 ms delay. Gaze-centered updating predicts similarities in reaching errors between fixation and saccade trials. Control subjects showed evidence for gaze-centered updating during both 500 and 5000 ms delay conditions. In contrast, patient AT, who had extensive occipital-parietal damage, only showed signs of gaze-centered representation after 5 s. Patient IG, with a more focal lesion in the parietal cortices, showed partial updating in gaze-centered coordinates when reaching with the small memory delay but recovered a complete gaze-centered representation after the longer delay. This suggests that patients with bilateral occipital-parietal lesions may rely on non-gaze-centered frames to store immediate target locations in reaching space but, given enough time, this information may be rerouted to access other gaze-centered motor cortical mechanisms.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".