Topographic disorientation (TD) in Developmental and Aquired Prosopagnosia patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies report that acquired prosopagnosia is frequently associated with topographic disorientation. However, whether this is associated with a specific anatomic subtype of prosopagnosia, how frequently it is seen with the developmental variant of this disorder, and what specific topographic function is impaired to account for this problem are not known. We studied ten subjects with acquired prosopagnosia from either occipitotemporal or anterior temporal lesions and seven with developmental prosopagnosia. Subjects were given a battery of topographic tests, including house and scene recognition, the road map test, a test of path integration from optic flow, and cognitive map formation and use. House and/or scene recognition were frequently impaired after either occipitotemporal or anterior temporal lesions in acquired prosopagnosia. Subjects with occipitotemporal lesions were also impaired in cognitive map formation: an overlap lesion analysis identified right fusiform and parahippocampal gyri as a likely correlate of this deficit. Path integration was intact in all and only one subject with acquired prosopagnosia had mild difficulty with directional orientation on the road map test. Only one subject with developmental prosopagnosia had difficulty with cognitive map formation, and none were impaired on the other tests. We conclude that topographic disorientation in acquired prosopagnosia reflects impaired place recognition, with a contribution from poor cognitive map formation when there is occipitotemporal damage. Topographic impairments are less frequent in developmental prosopagnosia. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".