Perte sensorielle et réorganisation cérébrale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is without a doubt that humans are first and foremost visual beings. Even though the other sensory modalities provide us with valuable information, it is vision that generally offers the most reliable and detailed information concerning our immediate surroundings. It is therefore not surprising that nearly a third of the human brain processes, in one way or another, visual information. But what happens when the visual information no longer reaches these brain regions responsible for processing it? Indeed numerous medical conditions such as congenital glaucoma, retinis pigmentosa and retinal detachment, to name a few, can disrupt the visual system and lead to blindness. So, do the brain areas responsible for processing visual stimuli simply shut down and become non-functional? Do they become dead weight and simply stop contributing to cognitive and sensory processes? Current data suggests that this is not the case. Quite the contrary, it would seem that congenitally blind individuals benefit from the recruitment of these areas by other sensory modalities to carry out non-visual tasks. In fact, our laboratory has been studying blindness and its consequences on both the brain and behaviour for many years now. We have shown that blind individuals demonstrate exceptional hearing abilities. This finding holds true for stimuli originating from both near and far space. It also holds true, under certain circumstances, for those who lost their sight later in life, beyond a period generally believed to limit the brain changes following the loss of sight. In the case of the early blind, we have shown their ability to localize sounds is strongly correlated with activity in the occipital cortex (the location of the visual processing), demonstrating that these areas are functionally engaged by the task. Therefore it would seem that the plastic nature of the human brain allows them to make new use of the cerebral areas normally dedicated to visual processing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".