MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169713577 · doi:10.1037/a0034015

Short-term visual deprivation improves the perception of harmonicity.

2013· article· en· W2169713577 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon P. Landry, Douglas M. Shiller, François Champoux

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyVisual processingVisual perceptionAuditory perceptionTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyNeuroimagingNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroimaging studies have shown that the perception of auditory stimuli involves occipital cortical regions traditionally associated with visual processing, even in the absence of any overt visual component to the task. Analogous behavioral evidence of an interaction between visual and auditory processing during purely auditory tasks comes from studies of short-term visual deprivation on the perception of auditory cues, however, the results of such studies remain equivocal. Although some data have suggested that visual deprivation significantly increases loudness and pitch discrimination and reduces spatial localization inaccuracies, it is still unclear whether such improvement extends to the perception of spectrally complex cues, such as those involved in speech and music perception. We present data demonstrating that a 90-min period of visual deprivation causes a transient improvement in the perception of harmonicity: a spectrally complex cue that plays a key role in music and speech perception. The results provide clear behavioral evidence supporting a role for the visual system in the processing of complex auditory stimuli, even in the absence of any visual component to the task.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.348 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & PerformanceSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207