Are Action Concept Deficits Embodied in a Topographic Manner in Adults with Cerebral Palsy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Cerebral Palsy (CP) children commonly experience semantic deficits.The cause of semantic deficits, and persistence into adulthood, are unknown.The social network hypothesis states decreased frequency of language use in CP individuals leads to impoverished lexico-semantic representations.The embodied cognition hypothesis emphasizes the role of the motor system in processing action concepts.In this study, participants first completed a sentence-reading task while their event related potentials (ERPs) to semantically incongruent sentences were collected.No evidence was found that CP individuals process domain-general semantic incongruence differently to neurotypicals.Participants then made action decisions on lower-limb (kick), and psychological verbs (believe) in an identity-priming paradigm.The ERP component of interest was the N400.There was no evidence to suggest CP individuals have action verb impairments.If the motor system contributes but is not necessary for action semantics, then participants may present no deficits when compared to neurotypicals as shown here.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".