MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153359692 · doi:10.1007/s40167-014-0019-3

Behavioural asymmetries on the greyscales task: The influence of native reading direction

2014· article· en· W2153359692 on OpenAlexaff
Trista E. Friedrich, Lorin Elias

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture and Brain · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyTask (project management)Left and rightNeglectReading (process)PerceptionRight-to-leftAttentional biasAudiologyCognitionNeuroscienceMedicineComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reliable leftward attentional and perceptual biases demonstrated in a variety of visuospatial tasks have been found to deviate from the left in research examining the influence of scanning habits. The aim of the current research was to examine the influence of native script direction on pseudoneglect during the greyscales task in a representative sample of native right-to-left readers. Fifty-four native left-to-right readers and 43 right-to-left readers completed the greyscales task, which required judging the darker of two left-right mirrored brightness gradients. Native left-to-right readers demonstrated a left response bias on the greyscales task, whereas right-to-left readers failed to demonstrate a bias, however, both groups responded more quickly when making leftward choices. The research suggests that the strength of attentional biases are influenced by behavioural biases, such as scanning habits, and neural and anatomical asymmetries in the right parietal and frontal cortices. Thus, to improve the clinical utility of the greyscales task for diagnosing neglect, right-to-left readers should be examined to fully understand the normal range of biases displayed by neurologically healthy individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture and BrainSame topicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionFrench-language works237,207