MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186841184 · doi:10.1093/brain/awv275

Refuting the hypothesis that a unilateral human parietal lesion abolishes saccade corollary discharge

2015· article· en· W2186841184 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCorollaryParietal lobeSaccadeNeurosciencePsychologyFixation (population genetics)Temporal lobeEye movementPosterior parietal cortexMedicineEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper questions the prominent role that the parietal lobe is thought to play in the processing of corollary discharges for saccadic eye movements. A corollary discharge copies the motor neurons' signal and sends it to brain areas involved in monitoring eye trajectories. The classic double-step saccade task has been used extensively to study these mechanisms: two targets (T1 and T2) are quickly (40-150 ms) flashed sequentially in the periphery. After the extinction of the fixation point, subjects are to make two saccades (S1 and S2), in the dark, to the remembered locations of the targets in the order they appeared. The success of S2 requires a corollary discharge encoding S1's vector. Patients with a parietal lobe lesion, particularly on the right, are impaired at generating an accurate S2 when S1 is directed contralesionally, but not ipsilesionally, thought due to an impaired contralesional corollary discharge. In contrast, we hypothesize that failure on the classic double-step task is due to visual processing and attentional deficits that commonly result from lesions of the parietal lobe and imperfect data analysis methods. Here, we studied parietal patients who fail in the classic double-step task when tested and data analysed according to previously published methods. We then tested our patients on two modified versions of the double-step task, designed to mitigate deficits other than corollary discharge that may have confounded previous investigations. In our 'exogenous' task, T2 was presented prior to T1 and for longer (T2: 800-1200 ms, T1: 350 ms) than in the classic task. S1 went to T1 and S2 to T2, all in the dark. All patients who completed sufficient trials had a corollary discharge for contralesional and ipsilesional S1s (5/5). In our 'endogenous' task, a single target was presented peripherally for 800-1200 ms. After extinction of target and fixation point, patients made first an 'endogenous' S1, of self-determined amplitude either to the left or right, before making S2 to the remembered location of the previously flashed target. To be successful, a corollary discharge of endogenous S1-generated in the dark-was required in the calculation of S2's motor vector. Every parietal patient showed evidence of using corollary discharges for endogenous S1s in the ipsilesional and contralesional directions (6/6). Our results support the hypothesis, based on our previous studies of corollary discharge mechanisms in hemidecorticate patients, and electrophysiological studies by others in monkey, that corollary discharges for left and right saccades are available to each cortical hemisphere.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.144 · 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