The Effect of Perinatal Stroke on Spatial Orientation (P2.248)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to determine the potential for plasticity in development of complex cognition after early focal brain injury. We use a novel video game task to test the hypothesis that children with perinatal stroke will differ in topographic orientation abilities as compared to unaffected children. BACKGROUND: Perinatal ischemic stroke syndromes are caused by a vascular disruption between 20 weeks gestation and 28 days postnatal, resulting in a focal brain injury. Although studies show children with a perinatal stroke may have IQ in the normal range, their scores tend to be lower than controls, suggesting that plasticity preserved many functions but there is likely decreased cognitive potential. Topographical orientation refers to the ability to orient within and navigate through an environment. This complex behaviour relies on several cognitive processes (such as memory, attention, and decision-making) that are underlain by widespread neural networks. It is therefore ideal for testing development after disruption of extensive networks. DESIGN/METHODS: Children with perinatal stroke and age-matched controls were tested with an engaging first-person navigation task. Participants also performed a neuropsychological battery. Performance was compared between groups, and the effect of injury was assessed by correlation of behavioural scores to lesion features on the most recent MRI scan. RESULTS: Children with perinatal stroke performed worse than age-matched controls on neuropsychological testing. On the orientation task, children with stroke initially showed impairment but, over the course of 40 trials, ultimately performed similar to controls. Performance on navigation task was independent of lesion location or laterality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows children with perinatal stroke had initial impairments in topographical orientation that were overcome after additional practice. Our data are consistent with previous findings showing that complex visuospatial skills are retained but less efficient. Study Supported by: Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".