Optimal Audiovisual Integration in the Ventriloquism Effect But Pervasive Deficits in Unisensory Spatial Localization in Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Classically understood as a deficit in spatial vision, amblyopia is increasingly recognized to also impair audiovisual multisensory processing. Studies to date, however, have not determined whether the audiovisual abnormalities reflect a failure of multisensory integration, or an optimal strategy in the face of unisensory impairment. We use the ventriloquism effect and the maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) model of optimal integration to investigate integration of audiovisual spatial information in amblyopia. Methods: Participants with unilateral amblyopia (n = 14; mean age 28.8 years; 7 anisometropic, 3 strabismic, 4 mixed mechanism) and visually normal controls (n = 16, mean age 29.2 years) localized brief unimodal auditory, unimodal visual, and bimodal (audiovisual) stimuli during binocular viewing using a location discrimination task. A subset of bimodal trials involved the ventriloquism effect, an illusion in which auditory and visual stimuli originating from different locations are perceived as originating from a single location. Localization precision and bias were determined by psychometric curve fitting, and the observed parameters were compared with predictions from the MLE model. Results: Spatial localization precision was significantly reduced in the amblyopia group compared with the control group for unimodal visual, unimodal auditory, and bimodal stimuli. Analyses of localization precision and bias for bimodal stimuli showed no significant deviations from the MLE model in either the amblyopia group or the control group. Conclusions: Despite pervasive deficits in localization precision for visual, auditory, and audiovisual stimuli, audiovisual integration remains intact and optimal in unilateral amblyopia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".