MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566225367 · doi:10.1093/brain/aww292

Reply: Contributions of visual and motor signals in cervical dystonia

2016· letter· en· W2566225367 on OpenAlexaff
Aasef G. Shaikh, David S. Zee, J. Douglas Crawford, Hyder A. Jinnah

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGazeProprioceptionTrunkVisual fieldCervical dystoniaPsychologyNeuroscienceComputer visionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceDystoniaMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, We appreciate the thoughtful comments from Amlang and colleagues regarding our recent viewpoint (Shaikh et al. , 2016). They raise the important point that the neural integrator responsible for controlling head position relies on visual feedback in addition to feedback from the cerebellum, proprioceptors, and the basal ganglia. To address these ideas Amlang and colleagues analysed the ‘straight-ahead preference’ in subjects with cervical dystonia and compared it with that of healthy subjects. The ‘straight-ahead preference’ is a classic physiological phenomenon in which the reaction time to a novel image appearing in the peripheral visual field is longer if the eyes and the gaze are straight ahead, aligned with the trunk (e.g. Condition 1 in Fig. 1) than if the eyes are turned to an eccentric location and the target appears straight ahead, in line with head or trunk (e.g. Condition 2 in Fig. 1) (Durand et al. , 2012). This privileged visual processing of the straight-ahead direction in humans is of fundamental functional significance. As multi-tasking creatures, we scan the environment while in motion. As a result, gaze often is not straight ahead, but it is beneficial to be able to refixate promptly to targets that appear directly in front to avoid potential obstacles or accidents. Such behaviour would require the brain to have internal knowledge of the relative alignment of the position of the eye (retina) in the orbit, and the position of the head on the …

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207