Mechanisms of dressing apraxia: a case study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the neural mechanisms that differentiate dressing apraxia from other forms of apraxia such as ideomotor apraxia. Hypotheses examined included (1) that dressing is more sensitive to alternations in body schema, (2) that dressing is a demanding bimanual task, and (3) that clothing represents a particularly complex spatial problem. BACKGROUND: A focal degenerative condition can specifically target a function such as dressing, allowing a unique approach to its study. METHOD: A case study of the cognitive impairments of a 75-year-old man who presented with progressive dressing difficulties in the absence of neglect or motor disturbances. RESULTS: Neuropsychologic testing indicated possible executive function deficits as well as visuospatial and visuocontructional deficits, but intact praxic skills, verbal abilities, and visual recognition skills. In addition, testing revealed no evidence of Balint's or impairments in body schema. CONCLUSION: Overall, the test results suggested that visuospatial dysfunction is the underlying deficit in dressing apraxia. The present case study confirmed the independence of praxic functioning from spatial ability and conversely, the dependence of dressing on spatial ability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".