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

Multisensory Integration in Cochlear Implant Recipients

2017· review· en· W2606029086 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.418
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