Attention and awareness: Representation of visuomotor space in split-brain patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each cerebral hemisphere primarily controls and receives sensory input with regard to the contralateral hand. In the disconnected brain (split-brain), when the hands are uncrossed, direct visual access to each hand is available to the controlling (contralateral) hemisphere. However, when a hand crosses the midline, visual and tactile information regarding the hand are presented to different hemispheres. It is unknown how a contralateral hemi- sphere codes the position and orientation of a visually inaccessible hand in the discon- nected brain. The present work addresses this issue. We ask how each hemisphere represents “its” hand across hand positions that span the midline in the absence of cortical input from the contralateral hemisphere. In other words, when a hand is placed across the midline and is visually inaccessible, is it represented by the controlling hemisphere: (1) in accordance with its new position with respect to the body (e.g., a left hand “becomes” a right effector when it crosses the midline), (2) with left/right position information unal- tered (e.g., the left hand is represented as “left” regardless of its location), or (3) stripped of its location information altogether? The relationship between hand position and the spatial codes assigned to potential responses (an index of hand representation) was investigated in two split-brain patients using direct (Experiment 1) and orthogonal (Experiment 2) S-R compatibility paradigms. S-R compatibility effects in split-brain patients were consistent with those displayed by typical individuals. These findings suggest that position-based compatibility effects do not rely on cross-cortical connections. Rather, each hemisphere can accurately represent the full visuomotor space, a process that appears to be subserved by subcortical connections between the hemispheres.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".