Bibliographic record
Abstract
Valuable insights into the role played by visual experience in shaping spatial representations can be gained by studying the effects of visual deprivation on the remaining sensory modalities. For instance, it has long been debated how spatial hearing evolves in the absence of visual input. While several anecdotal accounts tend to associate complete blindness with exceptional hearing abilities, experimental evidence supporting such claims is, however, matched by nearly equal amounts of evidence documenting spatial hearing deficits. The purpose of this review is to summarize the key findings which support either enhancements or deficits in spatial hearing observed following visual loss and to provide a conceptual framework that isolates the specific conditions under which they occur. Available evidence will be examined in terms of spatial dimensions (horizontal, vertical, and depth perception) and in terms of frames of reference (egocentric and allocentric). Evidence suggests that while early blind individuals show superior spatial hearing in the horizontal plane, they also show significant deficits in the vertical plane. Potential explanations underlying these contrasting findings will be discussed. Early blind individuals also show spatial hearing impairments when performing tasks that require the use of an allocentric frame of reference. Results obtained with late-onset blind individuals suggest that early visual experience plays a key role in the development of both spatial hearing enhancements and deficits.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".