MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782361851

Performing rapid actions affects audiovisual processing

2017· article· en· W2782361851 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tristan Loria, Tara Lynn Henechowicz, Luc Tremblay

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)PsychologySensory cueSensory systemWeightingMultisensory integrationSensory processingCognitive psychologyCommunicationComputer scienceAudiologySpeech recognitionMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Performing rapid upper-limb movements influence audiovisual integration (i.e., Loria et al., 2016a). The re-weighting of target-congruent sensory information, such as the real-time up-regulation of visual processing during visuomotor tasks, may explain the influence of action on audiovisual processing (e.g., Tremblay & Nguyen, 2010). Yet, presenting temporal order judgment (TOJ) stimuli during a rapid movement towards visual and auditory targets has been shown to facilitate visual and auditory processing, while modulating audiovisual processing (i.e., Loria et al., 2016b). The purpose of the current study was to further probe the influence of action on audiovisual integration. Participants performed a flinging movement, requiring the index finger to align with an audiovisual target at peak velocity (PV). At PV, participants were presented with asynchronous auditory, visual, and audiovisual cues from both sides of the target. After each trial, participants judged which sensory cue was presented first in a TOJ task. TOJs were also completed at rest. Theoretically, TOJ accuracy should be optimal in the audiovisual condition (Ernst & Bulthoff, 2004). And if engaging in a rapid goal-directed action specifically influences audiovisual processing, only audiovisual TOJ accuracy should decline between the rest and movement conditions. The results showed greater accuracy for audiovisual than auditory TOJs only at rest while TOJ accuracy did not differ across the sensory conditions after flinging movements. Further, contrasting TOJ accuracy between the resting and movement conditions only revealed a decrease in performance for audiovisual TOJs. Overall, unisensory processing appeared unaffected during rapid limb movements while audiovisual processing was specifically hindered. Acknowledgments: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Ontario Research Fund (ORF), and University of Toronto Graduate Student Bursary

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207