Older and younger adults use fewer neural resources during audiovisual than during auditory speech perception.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study looks at age-related differences in the brain processes involved in audiovisual (AV) speech perception in multi-talker background babble. The behavioural findings clearly show that both younger adults (YA) and older adults (OA) benefited equally well from AV speech relative to auditory-only (A) speech. Results pertaining to a condition that presented only a photograph alongside spoken words (AVphoto) supports the notion that an AV speech benefit cannot be achieved without the availability of dynamic visual speech cues provided by the lips. Interestingly, OA performed more poorly than YA in speechreading but, in line with the inverse effectiveness hypothesis, OA showed larger auditory enhancement effects suggesting that OA benefit more from AV speech. Analyses of the auditory N1 event-related potential (ERP) showed that AV speech trials lead to an amplitude reduction relative to A-only trials. This reduction was similar in YA and OA. In addition to the amplitude reduction, in both age groups the N1 related to AV speech trials peaked earlier, but this latency shift was larger for OA indicating that OA benefit more from AV speech than YA. These findings suggest that AV speech processing is more efficient because fewer neural resources are required to achieve superior performance. This idea of efficiency is further discussed with implications to higher-level cognition and successful aging.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".