MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132898619 · doi:10.1352/1944-7588-115.2.113

Neural Mechanisms Underlying Action Observation in Adults With Down Syndrome

2010· article· en· W2132898619 on OpenAlex
Naznin Virji‐Babul, Alexander Moiseev, Teresa Cheung, Daniel J. Weeks, Douglas Cheyne, Urs Ribary

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSimon Fraser UniversityDown Syndrome Research Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographyDown syndromeAction (physics)PsychologyNeural correlates of consciousnessNeuroscienceAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineElectroencephalographyCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results of a magnetoencephalography (MEG) brain imaging study conducted to examine the cortical responses during action execution and action observation in 10 healthy adults and 8 age-matched adults with Down syndrome are reported. During execution, the motor responses were strongly lateralized on the ipsilateral rather than the contralateral side in the Down syndrome group. Observation of movement activated a network of cortical regions that was similar to the control group; however, there was no significant peak activity in the motor areas. In addition, the overall pattern of neural activation was more scattered and less organized in the Down syndrome group. These results further support the hypothesis of a dysfunction in the execution/observation matching system in adults with Down syndrome.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.225 · 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