MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122205042 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu234

The DCDC2 Intron 2 Deletion Impairs Illusory Motion Perception Unveiling the Selective Role of Magnocellular-Dorsal Stream in Reading (Dis)ability

2014· article· en· W2122205042 on OpenAlexaff
Simone Gori, Sara Mascheretti, Enrico Giora, Luca Ronconi, Milena Ruffino, Ermanno Quadrelli, Andrea Facoetti, Cecilia Marino

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParvocellular cellDyslexiaPsychologyMotion perceptionPerceptionReading (process)NeuroscienceNeurocognitiveCognitive psychologyCognitionCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developmental dyslexia (DD) is a heritable neurodevelopmental reading disorder that could arise from auditory, visual, and cross-modal integration deficits. A deletion in intron 2 of the DCDC2 gene (hereafter DCDC2d) increases the risk for DD and related phenotypes. In this study, first we report that illusory visual motion perception-specifically processed by the magnocellular-dorsal (M-D) stream-is impaired in children with DD compared with age-matched and reading-level controls. Second, we test for the specificity of the DCDC2d effects on the M-D stream. Children with DD and DCDC2d need significantly more contrast to process illusory motion relative to their counterpart without DCDC2d and to age-matched and reading-level controls. Irrespective of the genetic variant, children with DD perform normally in the parvocellular-ventral task. Finally, we find that DCDC2d is associated with the illusory motion perception also in adult normal readers, showing that the M-D deficit is a potential neurobiological risk factor of DD rather than a simple effect of reading disorder. Our findings demonstrate, for the first time, that a specific neurocognitive dysfunction tapping the M-D stream is linked with a well-defined genetic susceptibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207