Perceptions of Audio-Visual Impact Events in Younger and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have examined whether audio-visual integration changes in older age, with some studies reporting age-related differences and others reporting no differences. Most studies have either used very basic and ambiguous stimuli (e.g., flash/beep) or highly contextualized, causally related stimuli (e.g., speech). However, few have used tasks that fall somewhere between the extremes of this continuum, such as those that include contextualized, causally related stimuli that are not speech-based; for example, audio-visual impact events. The present study used a paradigm requiring duration estimates and temporal order judgements (TOJ) of audio-visual impact events. Specifically, the Schutz-Lipscomb illusion, in which the perceived duration of a percussive tone is influenced by the length of the visual striking gesture, was examined in younger and older adults. Twenty-one younger and 21 older adult participants were presented with a visual point-light representation of a percussive impact event (i.e., a marimbist striking their instrument with a long or short gesture) combined with a percussive auditory tone. Participants completed a tone duration judgement task and a TOJ task. Five audio-visual temporal offsets (-400 to +400 ms) and five spatial offsets (from -90 to +90°) were randomly introduced. Results demonstrated that the strength of the illusion did not differ between older and younger adults and was not influenced by spatial or temporal offsets. Older adults showed an 'auditory first bias' when making TOJs. The current findings expand what is known about age-related differences in audio-visual integration by considering them in the context of impact-related events.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".