MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040463736 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e3282f2a63

Tactile–‘visual’ acuity of the tongue in early blind individuals

2007· article· en· W2040463736 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

VenueNeuroreport · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTongueVisual acuityAudiologyStimulus (psychology)Sensory substitutionSensory systemPsychologyMedicineOphthalmologyNeuroscienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compares the 'tactile-visual' acuity of the tongue for 15 early blind participants with that of 24 age-matched and sex-matched sighted controls. Snellen's tumbling E test was used to assess 'visual' acuity using the tongue display unit. The tongue display unit is a sensory substitution device that converts a visual stimulus grabbed by a camera into electro-tactile pulses delivered to the tongue via a grid made out of electrodes. No overall significant difference was found in thresholds between early blind (1/206) and sighted control (1/237) participants. We found, however, a larger proportion of early blind in the two highest visual acuity categories (1/150 and 1/90). These results extend earlier findings that it is possible to measure visual acuity in the blind individuals using the tongue. Moreover, our data demonstrate that a subgroup of early blind participants is more efficient than controls in conveying visual information through the tongue.

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)0.000
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.288 · 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