Conduction apraxia can arise from damage to either hemisphere and the deficit is associated with impaired ability to imitate meaningless gestures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conduction Limb Apraxia is defined as a deficit in imitation with preserved pantomime of gestures. The Conceptual Production Systems Model suggests that conduction apraxia could be caused by either an impaired ability to analyze visual gestural information (if the patient is also impaired on gesture identification) or by loss of the ability to use visual information in the control of movement (if gesture identification is intact). In both cases, the model predicts deficits in imitation of meaningless gestures. Our aim was to examine the frequency of such cases and to establish if in fact these patients have deficits in meaningless gestures imitation. In review of our database of stroke patients with apraxia assessments, 74 right-handed patients had completed all four transitive tasks (pantomime, concurrent imitation, delayed imitation and gesture recognition) necessary to establish conduction apraxia. Ten patients suffered from conduction apraxia (deficits in both concurrent and delayed imitation, but preserved pantomime): one left hemisphere damage (LHD) patient also had gesture identification deficits and nine (6 LHD, 3 right hemisphere damage (RHD)) had no gesture identification deficits. Nine out of these 10 patients had deficits in both delayed and concurrent imitation of meaningless gestures, while one LHD patient had deficits in concurrent, but not delayed imitation. Overall, these findings largely support the model, which predicts the occurrence of conduction apraxia should be associated with deficits in imitation of meaningless gestures. In addition, both left and right hemisphere damage caused this pattern suggesting that this process is bilaterally represented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".