Effect of Culturally Mediated Right-Favoritism on the Direction of Pseudoneglect on Line Bisection Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Arabs have a right-to-left language and engage in favoring of the right side or limb when implementing daily routine practices. The purpose of this research is to explore the effect this cultural attitude might have on pseudoneglect, by comparing with a southeast Asian sample that has a left-to-right language structure. Methods: Participants were from two separate ethnic groups (Arabs and Filipinos), residing in Saudi Arabia, healthy individals 18 years and above were allowed to volunteer in the study. The participants were recruited at King Saud University Medical City and the general community by both convenience and snowball sampling. Social demographic information such as gender, age, years of education, dominant hand, was also documented. The line bisection task (LBT) contained 36 randomly assorted lines of three different lengths placed at five different locations on a white sheet. The percent deviation score (PDS) was used to quantify pseudo-neglect. Tests of statistical significance including t -tests and mixed-effects regression were performed to determine if differences existed among different demographic variables or among line properties, respectively. Results: A total of 256 were enrolled (Arabs 52.3%). The overall PDS mean and standard deviation (SD) was −0.64 (2.87), p = 0.0004, which shows a significant leftward deviation in the entire cohort. PDS was −1.26 (2.68) in Filipinos, and −0.08 (2.94) in Arabs. The difference was statically significant ( p < 0.0001). Mixed effects model showed positive changes in the PDS value as the length of the line increased ( p < 0.0001) and as the line was more rightward placed ( p < 0.0001). However, Filipino participants would still exhibit negative changes in the PDS value in comparison to Arabs ( p < 0.0001); There were no significant associations between PDS and other factors such as age, years of education and gender. Conclusion: Differences found here between two distinct ethnic groups support the hypothesis that certain cultural aspects such as language direction and other cultural practices influence direction and degree of pseudo-neglect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".