Perceptual visual dependence for spatial orientation in patients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with schizophrenia are reported to have vestibular dysfunction and to weigh vestibular input to a lesser extent compared to healthy controls. Such deficits may increase visual dependence (VD) for spatial orientation at a perceptual level in these patients. The aim of this study is to compare VD levels between healthy control and patients with schizophrenia and to explore associations between VD and clinical measures in these patients. Relation of VD to antipsychotic drug treatment is also discussed. METHOD: 18 patients with schizophrenia and 19 healthy controls participated in this study. The Rod and Disc Test (RDT) was used to create an optokinetic surround around a centrally located rod. Participants aligned the rod to their subjective visual vertical (SVV) in both static and dynamic disc conditions. VD was calculated as the difference in SVV between these two conditions. RESULTS: There was no group difference or gender difference in static or dynamic SVV as well as VD. There was no correlation between VD and any of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores, however VD was significantly correlated to illness duration in the patient group. CONCLUSIONS: Schizophrenia is not associated with greater VD levels at a perceptual level, compared to controls, indicating adequate visuo-vestibular integration for judging line verticality in these patients. Patients with greater chronicity of the disease are more visually dependent than those less chronically ill, consistent with previous reports of possible vestibular dysfunction in patients with schizophrenia. This may affect their daily functioning in dynamic visual environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".