Links between temporal acuity and multisensory integration across life span.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The temporal relationship between individual pieces of information from the different sensory modalities is one of the stronger cues to integrate such information into a unified perceptual gestalt, conveying numerous perceptual and behavioral advantages. Temporal acuity, however, varies greatly over the life span. It has previously been hypothesized that changes in temporal acuity in both development and healthy aging may thus play a key role in integrative abilities. This study tested the temporal acuity of 138 individuals ranging in age from 5 to 80. Temporal acuity and multisensory integration abilities were tested both within and across modalities (audition and vision) with simultaneity judgment and temporal order judgment tasks. We observed that temporal acuity, both within and across modalities, improved throughout development into adulthood and subsequently declined with healthy aging, as did the ability to integrate multisensory speech information. Of importance, throughout development, temporal acuity of simple stimuli (i.e., flashes and beeps) predicted individuals' abilities to integrate more complex speech information. However, in the aging population, although temporal acuity declined with healthy aging and was accompanied by declines in integrative abilities, temporal acuity was not able to predict integration at the individual level. Together, these results suggest that the impact of temporal acuity on multisensory integration varies throughout the life span. Although the maturation of temporal acuity drives the rise of multisensory integrative abilities during development, it is unable to account for changes in integrative abilities in healthy aging. The differential relationships between age, temporal acuity, and multisensory integration suggest an important role for experience in these processes. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".