MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000119474 · doi:10.1093/brain/awf096

Sound localization in callosal agenesis and early callosotomy subjects: brain reorganization and/or compensatory strategies

2002· article· en· W2000119474 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadia Lessard, Franco Leporé, J. Villemagne, Maryse Lassonde

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMonauralBinaural recordingSound localizationCorpus callosumPsychologyAudiologyAgenesis of the corpus callosumAnterior commissureNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to evaluate the callosal involvement in sound localization, the present study examined the response accuracy of acallosal and early callosotomized subjects to monaural and binaural auditory targets presented in three-dimensional space. In these subjects, bilateral localization cues, such as interaural time and level differences, are integrated at the cortical and subcortical levels without the additional support of the callosal commissure. Because acallosal and early-callosotomized subjects have developed with this reduced source of binaural activation of cortical cells, they might have perfected their ability to use monaural sound localization cues. This hypothesis was tested by assessing localization performance under both binaural and monaural listening conditions. Five subjects with callosal agenesis, one callosotomized subject operated early in life and 19 control subjects were asked to localize broad-band noise bursts (BBNBs) of fixed intensity in the horizontal plane in an anechoic chamber. BBNBs were delivered through randomly selected loudspeakers. Two conditions were tested: (i) localization of a stationary sound source; and (ii) localization of a moving sound source. Listeners had to report the apparent stimulus location by pointing to its perceived position on a graduated perimeter. The results indicated that the acallosal subjects were less accurate than controls, but only in the binaural moving sound condition. More interestingly, in the monaural testing conditions, some of the acallosal subjects and the early-callosotomized subject performed significantly better than control subjects. This suggests that, because of the absence of the corpus callosum, these subjects compensate for their reduced access to cortically determined binaural cues by making more efficient use of monaural cues.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207