MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Visual recalibration of auditory spatial perception: two separate neural circuits for perceptual learning

2009· article· en· W1997029947 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrastriate cortexPsychologyPerceptionNeuroscienceVisual fieldPerceptual learningBlindsightNeglectNeural adaptationVisual perceptionAuditory perceptionVisual cortexAudiologyContrast (vision)Adaptation (eye)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A remarkable example of rapid perceptual learning is the visual recalibration of auditory spatial perception, which can result in either a bias (ventriloquism after-effect) or an improvement (multisensory enhancement) in auditory localization. Here, we examine the possibility that these after-effects might depend on two distinct neural pathways (geniculostriate vs. collicular-extrastriate). To this end, patients with a lesion of the striate cortex (hemianopic patients) or temporoparietal cortex (neglect patients) were asked to localize weak sounds, before and after a brief exposure to repetitive auditory-visual stimulation which was given either in the normal or in the affected field. Adaptation comprised spatially disparate (Experiment 1) or spatially coincident (Experiment 2) auditory-visual stimuli. After exposure to spatially disparate stimuli in the normal field, all patients exhibited the usual shifts toward the visual attractor, at each sound location. In contrast, when the same kind of adaptation was given in the affected field, a consistent shift was still evident in neglect patients but not in patients with hemianopia. After adaptation to spatially coincident stimuli, and regardless of the adaptation hemifield, all patients exhibited a significant improvement in auditory localization, which was largest for sounds presented at the adapted location. The findings suggest the presence of two distinct recalibration mechanisms. Adapting to spatially conflicting stimuli invokes a corrective mechanism implemented within the geniculostriate circuit, which tries to reduce the registered discrepancy. Adapting to spatially aligned inputs invokes a mechanism implemented along a collicular-extrastriate circuit, which tries to reduce the localization error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it