SEEING WHAT THEY SEE: COMPENSATING FOR CORTICAL VISUAL DYSFUNCTION IN ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster reports on a study of brainsight in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), integrating findings from three preparatory studies lead by neuropsychologists, engineers and social scientists. The work relies on unique insights offered by those with Posterior Cortical Atrophy (PCA) – a rare dementia usually caused by AD, but characterised by early, progressive visual impairment in contrast to relatively spared memory and language function. A total of 27 people with PCA and a comparative sample of 23 people with typical AD completed (i) a battery of cognitive tests assessing memory, language and visual function, (ii) tasks involving navigation and object finding within a simulated environment (PAMELA) and (iii) in-depth individual and dyadic interviews in the home. Neuropsychological and PAMELA studies identified people with PCA had particular difficulty in recognising and locating objects presented among visual clutter. PAMELA studies provided suggestions on the optimal environmental conditions for people to navigate and locate objects. The interviews concurred that perceptual problems in AD result in numerous physical challenges in daily life (e.g. dressing, reading) but the management of these difficulties was mediated by complexities within the social environment (e.g. identity maintenance). We conclude that widely varying profiles of cortical visual dysfunction in AD can result in a range of challenges for individuals and families, and that the physical environment can be moderated in ways which support performance of everyday activities. This project highlights the need for interventions to bolster existing capital within the family system and acknowledge the changing nature of AD-related difficulties over time.
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".