Altered orienting of visuospatial attention in patients with vestibular disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vestibular system, one of the earliest sensory systems in vertebrates, is crucial for encoding head and trunk movements. Research in stroke patients with spatial attention deficits and studies manipulating vestibular signals in healthy individuals suggest that the vestibular system is also involved in orienting visuospatial attention. However, the specific interactions between vestibular and attentional systems and the consequences of vestibular pathologies on attentional functions are still poorly understood. In this study, we investigated the impact of vestibular disorders on the orienting of automatic (exogenous) and voluntary (endogenous) attention in patients (N = 16) with acute (AVS), episodic (EVS) or chronic (CVS) vestibular syndromes, who were compared to a control group (N = 16) of age-matched healthy participants. The two groups were assessed using endogenous and exogenous versions of the Posner cueing task. Cognitive functioning and anxiety were evaluated with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), respectively. Vestibular patients exhibited selective impairments in maintaining voluntary attention in the endogenous task, particularly those with EVS and CVS, compared to the controls. In addition, vestibular alterations influenced the automatic right-lateralized attention system, as evidenced by a reduced rightward attentional bias in the exogenous task in vestibular patients. Anxiety, aging, or the overall cognitive function did not influence the observed attention deficits. The evidence that vestibular disorders differentially affect voluntary and automatic orienting of visuospatial attention has relevant implications for the assessment and treatment of patients with vestibular disorders, the rehabilitation of stroke patients with spatial attention deficits, and space research.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".