Audiovisual fusion and cochlear implant proficiency
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent studies suggest that cochlear implant (CI) users have a typical, and perhaps improved, ability to fuse congruent multisensory information. The ability to fuse incongruent auditory and visual inputs, however, remains to be fully investigated. METHODS: Here, performance on a classical audiovisual task (the McGurk effect) was assessed in seventeen cochlear-implanted, postlingually deaf individuals with varied degrees of auditory competency. RESULTS: In line with previous studies, our results revealed audiovisual fusion abilities that were within normal limits in CI users compared to normally-hearing (NH) participants. A different pattern of response emerged, however, when participants' responses were analyzed according to the degree of auditory proficiency with the CI. Although proficient CI users (pCI) and NH participants favoured auditory input when multisensory signals were not fused, only the non-proficient CI users (npCI) relied predominantly on visual cues to resolve audiovisual conflict. This pattern was found despite a similar percentage of fused percepts between pCI users, npCI users and NH participants. CONCLUSION: These data show a remarkable level of similarity between pCI users and NH individuals in the perception of incongruent audiovisual information, suggesting that optimal auditory performance with the CI is associated with normal fusion of conflicting audiovisual input.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it