MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281291558 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.104439

Audiovisual spatial recalibration but not integration is shaped by early sensory experience

2022· article· en· W4281291558 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Bruns, Lux Li, Maria J. S. Guerreiro, Idris Shareef, Siddhart S. Rajendran, Kabilan Pitchaimuthu, Ramesh Kekunnaya, Brigitte Röder

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMultisensory integrationCrossmodalPsychologySensory systemAudiologyVisual perceptionSensory cuePerceptionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To clarify the role of sensory experience during early development for adult multisensory learning capabilities, we probed audiovisual spatial processing in human individuals who had been born blind because of dense congenital cataracts (CCs) and who subsequently had received cataract removal surgery, some not before adolescence or adulthood. Their ability to integrate audio-visual input and to recalibrate multisensory spatial representations was compared to normally sighted control participants and individuals with a history of developmental (later onset) cataracts. Results in CC individuals revealed both normal multisensory integration in audiovisual trials (ventriloquism effect) and normal recalibration of unimodal auditory localization following audiovisual discrepant exposure (ventriloquism aftereffect) as observed in the control groups. In addition, only the CC group recalibrated unimodal visual localization after audiovisual exposure. Thus, in parallel to typical multisensory integration and learning, atypical crossmodal mechanisms coexisted in CC individuals, suggesting that multisensory recalibration capabilities are defined during a sensitive period in development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207