Odor localization in structural interhemispheric deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrary to all other sensory systems, olfactory information is processed predominantly ipsilaterally. Furthermore, odor localization, based on inter-nostril differences, is usually not possible under controlled conditions. These two observations suggest information exchange between both cerebral hemispheres in the olfactory system, although the exact anatomical substrate remains unknown. This study aimed to identify the anatomical structures necessary for odor localization, with a particular focus on the role of interhemispheric communication. We assessed the ability to localize pure olfactory and mixed olfactory/trigeminal stimuli in 6 participants with structural interhemispheric deficits (including surgical transection or agenesis of the corpus callosum (CC) and agenesis of the CC and anterior commissure (AC, one case)) and compared their performance to 46 healthy controls. Of the six participants with structural interhemispheric deficits, three were unable to localize either stimulus. Two participants performed significantly better than chance for both pure and mixed stimuli, while one participant exhibited the typical localization pattern observed in most controls-accurate localization of the mixed olfactory/trigeminal stimulus but inability to localize the pure olfactory stimulus. Our results suggest that localization of chemosensory stimuli relies, at least in part, on CC, highlighting its role in interhemispheric communication for olfactory processing. The varying odor localization performance observed in participants with agenesis of CC indicates that compensatory mechanisms may be promoted in some cases, potentially preserving normal localization functions despite the absence of major commissural pathways.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".