Combining auditory and tactile inputs to create a sense of auditory space.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To localize a sound, the auditory system uses multiple cues, including binaural differences in timing and level that arise from the separation of the ears by the solid mass of the head. It has repeatedly been shown that the ability to utilize these cues is plastic and experience-based. Vibrotactile input shares many common features with auditory signals, and there is some overlap between the frequency range of the sensitivity of the ear and skin. In this study, we examine whether the auditory system is capable of combining auditory and tactile inputs to localize sounds using a multi-speaker array. To induce deficits in azimuthal localization, one ear was plugged. To examine cross-modal localization, the input level to the plugged ear was recorded via microphone, and a vibratory signal that was perceptually equal in intensity was presented to the shoulder on the same side as the plugged ear. The participant's ability to localize low-pass, band-pass, high-pass, and broadband sounds was measured. Results showed that relative to baseline (plugged) conditions, localization performance improved, suggesting that listeners can combine auditory and tactile information to create a sense of auditory space.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".