Behavioral Evidence for Enhanced Olfactory and Trigeminal Perception in Congenitally Deaf Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sensory deprivation, particularly hearing loss, is an excellent model to study neuroplasticity in the human brain and the adaptive behaviors that support the daily lives of deprived individuals. In adaptation to their hearing loss, deaf individuals rely on their other intact senses. Visual and tactile abilities are enhanced in deafness, but few studies have evaluated the olfactory function. This study aimed to compare the impact of congenital deafness on olfactory capacities using psychophysical tasks. Methodological issues raised in previous studies, such as homogeneous onset of deafness and cognitive function assessment, were considered. Eleven individuals with bilateral severe-to-profound deafness since birth were compared to 11 hearing non-signers similar in age (age range = 20-51 years old) and sex (7 women). The deaf subjects were assessed using various standardized neuropsychological tests to ascertain typical cognition. Olfactory functions were evaluated using the Sniffin’ Sticks battery test, which measures olfactory detection threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification. Further, accuracy and response time were examined for the identification and localization of two odors to disentangle olfactory sensitivity from sensitivity in the trigeminal system. The Sniffin’ Sticks test demonstrated superior performances in the deaf participants to discriminate and identify odors. In line with this, they also showed higher sensitivity when both identifying and localizing odors. These findings suggest that congenital deafness is associated with superior performance in higher-level olfactory processing and increased sensitivity in the trigeminal system.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".