What I think she thinks about my paralysed body: Social inferences about disability‐related content in anosognosia for hemiplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neuropsychological disorder of anosognosia for hemiplegia (AHP) can offer unique insights into the neurocognitive processes of body consciousness and representation. Previous studies have found associations between selective social cognition deficits and anosognosia. In this study, we examined how such social cognition deficits may directly interact with representations of one's body as disabled in AHP. We used a modified set of previously validated Theory of Mind (ToM) stories to create disability-related content that was related to post-stroke paralysis and to investigate differences between right hemisphere damage patients with (n = 19) and without (n = 19) AHP. We expected AHP patients to perform worse than controls when trying to infer paralysis-related mental states in the paralysis-related ToM stories and explored whether such differences depended on the inference patients were asked to perform (e.g. self or other referent perspective-taking). Using an advanced structural neuroimaging technique, we expected selective social cognitive deficits to be associated with posterior parietal cortex lesions and deficits in self-referent perspective-taking in paralysis-related mentalising to be associated with frontoparietal disconnections. Group- and individual-level results revealed that AHP patients performed worse than HP controls when trying to infer paralysis-related mental states. Exploratory lesion analysis results revealed some of the hypothesised lesions, but also unexpected white matter disconnections in the posterior body and splenium of the corpus collosum associated with a self-referent perspective-taking in paralysis-related ToM stories. The study has implications for the multi-layered nature of body awareness, including abstract, social perspectives and beliefs about the body.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".