Visuospatial bias in line bisection in Williams syndrome
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
BACKGROUND: Recently, a study using the subjective straight-ahead task showed that individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) present a bias in the representation of body perception. The aim of the present study is to examine the horizontal midline body representation in WS participants using the bisection line task, which is an important benchmark for an egocentric frame of reference. METHOD: Fifteen WS participants (mean age = 21.7 ± 9.5 years) were compared with two typical development control groups: one composed of 15 participants matched on chronological age and one composed of 15 children matched on mental age. The task consisted of dividing each line in a series of 18 lines into two equal halves by drawing a vertical mark with a pencil in the centre of the line. RESULTS: Individuals with WS presented a significant leftward bias in comparison to mental age and chronological age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The leftward deviation in WS could be linked to the body representation bias and difficulties in the development of the egocentric reference system. An early detection of such deviation should help in the development of targeted interventions for WS individuals to improve visual-spatial skills and learning.
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 | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it