Temporary Deafness Can Impair Multisensory Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous investigations suggest that temporary deafness can have a dramatic impact on audiovisual speech processing. The aim of this study was to test whether temporary deafness disturbs other multisensory processes in adults. A nonspeech task involving an audiotactile illusion was administered to a group of normally hearing individuals and a group of individuals who had been temporarily auditorily deprived. Members of this latter group had their auditory detection thresholds restored to normal levels through the use of a cochlear implant. Control conditions revealed that auditory and tactile discrimination capabilities were identical in the two groups. However, whereas normally hearing individuals integrated auditory and tactile information, so that they experienced the audiotactile illusion, individuals who had been temporarily deprived did not. Given the basic nature of the task, failure to integrate multisensory information could not be explained by the use of the cochlear implant. Thus, the results suggest that normally anticipated audiotactile interactions are disturbed following temporary deafness.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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".