Auditory influence on tactile perception changes with age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characteristics of auditory interaction with vision have been extensively studied. However, auditory system integration with other sensory modalities, such as the tactile system, lacks such thorough investigations. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of age on audiotactile integration in humans. Thirty-one participants between the ages of 20 and 65 were divided into three groups according to their age. Audiotactile integration was assessed using the "auditory flash illusion" in which 1, 2, 3, or 4 tactile stimuli were accompanied with 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 auditory stimuli. Participants were asked to ignore auditory stimulations and report the number of tactile stimulations perceived. All participants were tested with task relevant auditory and tactile stimuli as a control measures and were shown to have similar abilities. However, groups differed during the experimental conditions. The youngest group reported a greater number of tactile stimuli than actually presented during the illusory experimental conditions. Participants in the middle and older age groups did not report this illusory tactile perception. These results suggest that age reduces predisposition to audiotactile integration. These results are consistent with developmental studies for multisensory integration in other sensory modalities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".