MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606029086 · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000435

Multisensory Integration in Cochlear Implant Recipients

2017· review· en· W2606029086 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan A. Stevenson, Sterling W. Sheffield, Iliza M. Butera, René H. Gifford, Mark T. Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsNational Defence Medical CentreWestern University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute of Mental HealthWellcome TrustNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSpeech perceptionCochlear implantMultisensory integrationPerceptionAudiologyPsychologyStimulus (psychology)SentenceCognitive psychologyMedicineComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Speech perception is inherently a multisensory process involving integration of auditory and visual cues. Multisensory integration in cochlear implant (CI) recipients is a unique circumstance in that the integration occurs after auditory deprivation and the provision of hearing via the CI. Despite the clear importance of multisensory cues for perception, in general, and for speech intelligibility, specifically, the topic of multisensory perceptual benefits in CI users has only recently begun to emerge as an area of inquiry. We review the research that has been conducted on multisensory integration in CI users to date and suggest a number of areas needing further research. The overall pattern of results indicates that many CI recipients show at least some perceptual gain that can be attributable to multisensory integration. The extent of this gain, however, varies based on a number of factors, including age of implantation and specific task being assessed (e.g., stimulus detection, phoneme perception, word recognition). Although both children and adults with CIs obtain audiovisual benefits for phoneme, word, and sentence stimuli, neither group shows demonstrable gain for suprasegmental feature perception. Additionally, only early-implanted children and the highest performing adults obtain audiovisual integration benefits similar to individuals with normal hearing. Increasing age of implantation in children is associated with poorer gains resultant from audiovisual integration, suggesting a sensitive period in development for the brain networks that subserve these integrative functions, as well as length of auditory experience. This finding highlights the need for early detection of and intervention for hearing loss, not only in terms of auditory perception, but also in terms of the behavioral and perceptual benefits of audiovisual processing. Importantly, patterns of auditory, visual, and audiovisual responses suggest that underlying integrative processes may be fundamentally different between CI users and typical-hearing listeners. Future research, particularly in low-level processing tasks such as signal detection will help to further assess mechanisms of multisensory integration for individuals with hearing loss, both with and without CIs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.418
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.091 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations105
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207