Brain Substrates for Distinct Spatial Processing Components Contributing to Hemineglect in Humans
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
Several cortical and sub-cortical regions in the right hemisphere, particularly in parietal and frontal lobe, but also in temporal lobe and thalamus, are part of neural networks critically implicated in spatial and attentional functions. Damage to different sites within these networks can cause hemispatial neglect. The aim of this study was to identify the neural substrates of different spatial processing components that are known to contribute to neglect symptoms. First, three different spatial tasks (visual search, bisection, and visual memory) were tested in 27 patients with focal right brain-damage. Voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping was used to determine the relationships between specific sites of damage and severity of deficits in these three spatial tasks. Secondly, fMRI was used in 26 healthy controls who performed the same tasks. In the healthy group, fMRI results showed a differential activation of regions within the parietal and frontal lobes during bisection and visual search, respectively. In the patients, we confirmed a critical role of right lateral parietal cortex in bisection, but lesions in frontal and temporal lobe were more critical for visual search. These data support the existence of distinct components in spatial attentional processes that might be damaged to different degrees in neglect patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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