Early- and Late-Onset Blindness Both Curb Audiotactile Integration on the Parchment-Skin Illusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been shown that congenital blindness can lead to anomalies in the integration of auditory and tactile information, at least under certain conditions. In the present study, we used the parchment-skin illusion, a robust illustration of sound-biased perception of touch based on changes in frequency, to investigate the specificities of audiotactile interactions in early- and late-onset blind individuals. Blind individuals in both groups did not experience any illusory change in tactile perception when the frequency of the auditory signal was modified, whereas sighted individuals consistently experienced the illusion. This demonstration that blind individuals had reduced susceptibility to an auditory-tactile illusion suggests either that vision is necessary for the establishment of audiotactile interactions or that auditory and tactile information can be processed more independently in blind individuals than in sighted individuals. In addition, the results obtained in late-onset blind participants suggest that visual input may play a role in the maintenance of audiotactile integration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".