The Effects of Hemianopia on Perception of Mutual Gaze
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
SIGNIFICANCE: Individuals with left hemianopic field loss (HFL), especially with neglect history, may have greater difficulties than individuals with right HFL in judging the direction of another person's gaze. PURPOSE: Individuals with HFL often show a spatial bias in laboratory-based perceptual tasks. We investigated whether such biases also manifest in a more real-world task, perception of mutual gaze direction, an important, nonverbal communication cue in social interactions. METHODS: Participants adjusted the eye position of a life-size virtual head on a monitor at a 1-m distance until (1) the eyes appeared to be looking straight at them, or (2) the eyes were perceived to be no longer looking at them (to the right and left). RESULTS: Participants with right HFL (n = 8) demonstrated a rightward error in line bisection but made gaze judgments within the range of normally sighted controls (n = 17). Participants with left HFL without neglect history (n = 6) made leftward errors in line bisection and had more variable gaze judgments; three had estimates of gaze direction outside the reference range. Four participants with left HFL and neglect history made estimates of gaze direction that were to the right of the reference range. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that individuals with left HFL, especially with neglect history, may have greater difficulties than individuals with right HFL in compensating for low-level spatial biases (as manifested in line bisection) when performing the more complex, higher-level task of judging gaze direction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it