Vestibular Agnosia: Toward a Better Understanding of Its Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Vestibular agnosia is characterized by a reduced or absent self-motion perception while demonstrating the presence of normal peripheral vestibular function following stimulation. This condition has previously been reported by previous authors in different populations and more recently in traumatic brain injury patients. However, the underlying mechanisms responsible for vestibular agnosia remain a matter of debate. The objective of this manuscript is to review and compare the behavioral and neuroanatomical findings in populations where vestibular agnosia has been demonstrated to better understand the underlying mechanism. Methods: A review of the literature was conducted using four databases: Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and PubMed. A normal vestibulo-ocular reflex function with an impaired self-motion perception following vestibular stimulation represented the inclusion criteria used. Results: Behavioral data reviewed in the studies revealed a clear association with postural instability. However, no consensus can be drawn from neuroanatomical data due to variability in brain impairments in those populations even though impairments in the parietal cortex are often reported. Conclusions: In general, behavioral data and neuroanatomical data regarding vestibular agnosia have been poorly documented throughout the literature. However, vestibular agnosia can be observed in different populations and is present in concomitant postural control deficits, an important predictor of falls. Finally, even though the parietal cortex has been associated with vestibular agnosia, future studies are required to adequately identify the underlying mechanism. Indeed, the parietal cortex could be part of a larger network mediating vestibular agnosia. This review proposes various methods that future studies should use to overcome the present limitations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".