Allocentric Spatial Performance Higher in Early-Blind and Sighted Adults Than in Retinopathy-of-Prematurity Adults
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question as to whether people totally blind since infancy process allocentric or external spatial information like the sighted has caused considerable debate within the literature. Due to the extreme rarity of the population, researchers have often included individuals with retinopathy of prematurity (RoP--over oxygenation at birth) within the sample. However, RoP is inextricably confounded with prematurity per se. Prematurity, without visual disability, has been associated with spatial processing difficulties. In this experiment, blindfolded sighted participants and two groups of functionally totally blind participants heard text descriptions from a survey (allocentric) or route (egocentric) perspective. One blind group lost their sight due to RoP and a second group before 24 months of age. The accuracy of participants' mental representations derived from the text descriptions was assessed via questions and maps. The RoP participants had lower scores than the sighted and early blind, who performed similarly. In other words, it was not visual impairment alone that resulted in impaired allocentric spatial performance in this task but visual impairment together with RoP. This finding may help explain the contradictions within the existing literature on the role of vision in allocentric spatial processing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it