Development of audiovisual integration in central and peripheral vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We measured developmental changes (7-, 9-, and 11-year-olds, and adults) in audiovisual integration utilizing the visual fission and fusion illusions induced by sounds. In the fission illusion, a single flash is perceived as two flashes when accompanied by two beeps. In the fusion illusion, two flashes are perceived as a single flash when accompanied by a single beep. The flashes were presented in the centre or 10° in the periphery. The results revealed different developmental changes for the fission and fusion illusions in the centre and periphery. In the centre, fission and fusion decreased with age (p <.05, post-hoc tests revealed that the magnitude was smaller in adults than 7- and 9-year-olds, ps <.05), and there was no difference in the pattern for the two illusions (no main effect and no interaction, ps > .33). In contrast, in the periphery, fission was larger than fusion (p <.001), and this difference increased with age (p <.05, post-hoc tests revealed that the difference was larger in adults than 7- and 9-year-olds, ps <.05); however, there was only a marginal effect of age on magnitude of the illusions (p = .06). A further analysis based on signal detection theory demonstrated that these developmental changes in central and peripheral vision were partly caused by changes in sensitivity (d') to the flashes. These results suggest that developmental trajectories of audiovisual integration in the centre and periphery are different, and that, with age, peripheral vision becomes more susceptible than central vision to different types of audiovisual integration (i.e., fission vs. fusion). The results also demonstrate that audiovisual integration in central and peripheral vision does not become adult-like until 11 years of age, at least as measured by these two illusions. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".