Hemispheric asymmetries in the orientation and location of the lateral geniculate nucleus in dyslexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human brain asymmetry reflects normal specialization of functional roles and may derive from evolutionary, hereditary, developmental, experiential, and pathological factors (Toga & Thompson, 2003). Geschwind and Galaburda (1985) suggested that processing difficulties in dyslexia are due to structural differences between hemispheres. Because of its potential significance to the controversial magnocellular theory of dyslexia, we investigated hemispheric differences in the human lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), the primary visual relay and control nucleus in the thalamus, in subjects with dyslexia compared to normal readers. We acquired and averaged multiple high-resolution proton density (PD) weighted structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) volumes to measure in detail the anatomical boundaries of the LGN in each hemisphere. We observed hemispheric asymmetries in the orientation of the nucleus in subjects with dyslexia that were absent in controls. We also found differences in the location of the LGN between hemispheres in controls but not in subjects with dyslexia. Neither the precise anatomical differences in the LGN nor their functional consequences are known, nor is it clear whether the differences might be causes or effects of dyslexia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".