Deductive Reasoning and Working Memory Skills in Individuals with Blindness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deductive reasoning and working memory are integral parts of executive functioning and are important skills for blind people in everyday life. Despite the importance of these skills, the influence of visual experience on reasoning and working memory skills, as well as on the relationship between these, is unknown. In this study, fifteen participants with congenital blindness (CB), fifteen with late blindness (LB), fifteen sighted blindfolded controls (SbfC), and fifteen sighted participants performed two tasks of deductive reasoning and two of working memory. We found that while the CB and LB participants did not differ in their deductive reasoning abilities, the CB group performed worse than the sighted controls, and the LB group performed better than the SbfC group. Those with CB outperformed all the other groups in both of the working memory tests. Working memory is associated with deductive reasoning in all three visually impaired groups, but not in the sighted group. These findings suggest that deductive reasoning is not a uniform skill, and that it is associated with visual impairment onset, the level of reasoning difficulty, and the degree of working memory load.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".