The Art Gallery Test: A Preliminary Comparison between Traditional Neuropsychological and Ecological VR-Based Tests
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological validity should be the cornerstone of any assessment of cognitive functioning. For this purpose, we have developed a preliminary study to test the Art Gallery Test (AGT) as an alternative to traditional neuropsychological testing. The AGT involves three visual search subtests displayed in a Virtual Reality (VR) art gallery, designed to assess visual attention within an ecologically valid setting. To evaluate the relation between AGT and standard neuropsychological assessment scales, data were collected on a normative sample of healthy adults (n=30). The measures consisted of concurrent paper-and-pencil neuropsychological measures (MoCA, FAB and CTT) along with the outcomes from the three subtests of the AGT. The results showed significant correlations between the AGT subtests describing different visual search exercises strategies with global and specific cognitive measures. Comparative visual search was associated with attention and cognitive flexibility (CTT); whereas visual searches involving pictograms correlated with global cognitive function (MoCA).
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it