MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W5488617 · doi:10.1139/jpn.0352

Brain modules of hallucination: an analysis of multiple patients with brain lesions

2003· article· en· W5488617 on OpenAlex
Claude M. J. Braun, Mathieu Dumont, Julie Duval, Isabelle Hamel-Hébert, Lucie Godbout

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHallucinations in medical conditions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We systematically reviewed the localization of focal brain lesions that cause isolated hallucination in a single sensory modality. Case reports of post-lesion nonparoxysmal hallucination in 1 (and only 1) of 3 sensory modalities (i.e., visual, auditory, somatic) were reviewed, and the content of the qualitative descriptions was analyzed for each modality. The lesion is practically always located in the brain pathway of the sensory modality of the hallucination. There seem to exist localized sensory brain circuits that in healthy people diminish the intensity of internal sensory representation. After a lesion, hallucinosis seems to be caused also by compensatory overactivation of tissue in the nearby brain sensory pathway. This type of hallucination may indeed be termed a "release" form, whereby patients are aware of the hallucinatory nature of their experience, but not usually of "dream centres" as proposed by Lhermitte. Instead, we propose that it is dreaming that should be considered a special case of neural "release."

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it