Mechanisms of Cross-Modal Plasticity in Early-Blind Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of studies have demonstrated enhanced blood oxygenation level dependent responses to auditory and tactile stimuli within occipital cortex as a result of early blindness. However, little is known about the organizational principles that drive this cross-modal plasticity. We compared BOLD responses to a wide variety of auditory and tactile tasks (vs. rest) in early-blind and sighted subjects. As expected, cross-modal responses were larger in blind than in sighted subjects in occipital cortex for all tasks (cross-modal plasticity). Within both blind and sighted subject groups, we found patterns of cross-modal activity that were remarkably similar across tasks: a large proportion of cross-modal responses within occipital cortex are neither task nor stimulus specific. We next examined the mechanisms underlying enhanced BOLD responses within early-blind subjects. We found that the enhancement of cross-modal responses due to early blindness was best described as an additive shift, suggesting that cross-modal plasticity within blind subjects does not originate from either a scaling or unmasking of cross-modal responsivities found in sighted subjects.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".