Impaired Spatial Inhibition Processes for Interhemispheric Anti-saccades following Dorsal Posterior Parietal Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-saccades are eye movements that require inhibition to stop the automatic saccade to the visual target and to perform instead a saccade in the opposite direction. The inhibitory processes underlying anti-saccades have been primarily associated with frontal cortex areas for their role in executive control. Impaired performance in anti-saccades has also been associated with the parietal cortex, but its role in inhibitory processes remains unclear. Here, we tested the assumption that the dorsal parietal cortex contributes to spatial inhibition processes of contralateral visual target. We measured anti-saccade performance in 2 unilateral optic ataxia patients and 15 age-matched controls. Participants performed 90 degree (across and within visual fields) and 180 degree inversion anti-saccades, as well as pro-saccades. The main result was that our patients took longer to inhibit visually guided saccades when the visual target was presented in the ataxic hemifield and the task required a saccade across hemifields. This was observed through anti-saccades latencies and error rates. These deficits show the crucial role of the dorsal posterior parietal cortex in spatial inhibition of contralateral visual target representations to plan an accurate anti-saccade toward the ipsilesional side.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".