MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311398923 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-25392-y

The development of audio–visual temporal precision precedes its rapid recalibration

2022· article· en· W4311398923 on OpenAlexaff
Shui’er Han, Yi‐Chuan Chen, Daphne Maurer, David I. Shore, Terri L. Lewis, Brendan M. Stanley, David Alais

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAgency for Science, Technology and Research
KeywordsMultisensory integrationComputer scienceSimultaneityFlexibility (engineering)PerceptionVisual perceptionContrast (vision)ModalSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through development, multisensory systems reach a balance between stability and flexibility: the systems integrate optimally cross-modal signals from the same events, while remaining adaptive to environmental changes. Is continuous intersensory recalibration required to shape optimal integration mechanisms, or does multisensory integration develop prior to recalibration? Here, we examined the development of multisensory integration and rapid recalibration in the temporal domain by re-analyzing published datasets for audio-visual, audio-tactile, and visual-tactile combinations. Results showed that children reach an adult level of precision in audio-visual simultaneity perception and show the first sign of rapid recalibration at 9 years of age. In contrast, there was very weak rapid recalibration for other cross-modal combinations at all ages, even when adult levels of temporal precision had developed. Thus, the development of audio-visual rapid recalibration appears to require the maturation of temporal precision. It may serve to accommodate distance-dependent travel time differences between light and sound.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207