MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382344290 · doi:10.1177/23312165221076681

Visually biased Perception in Cochlear Implant Users: A Study of the McGurk and Sound-Induced Flash Illusions

2023· article· en· W4382344290 on OpenAlexafffund
Iliza M. Butera, Ryan A. Stevenson, René H. Gifford, Mark T. Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Hearing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCochlear implantIllusionPerceptionAudiologyFlash (photography)Speech perceptionPsychologySound (geography)AcousticsCognitive psychologyMedicineArtNeurosciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reduction in spectral resolution by cochlear implants oftentimes requires complementary visual speech cues to facilitate understanding. Despite substantial clinical characterization of auditory-only speech measures, relatively little is known about the audiovisual (AV) integrative abilities that most cochlear implant (CI) users rely on for daily speech comprehension. In this study, we tested AV integration in 63 CI users and 69 normal-hearing (NH) controls using the McGurk and sound-induced flash illusions. To our knowledge, this study is the largest to-date measuring the McGurk effect in this population and the first that tests the sound-induced flash illusion (SIFI). When presented with conflicting AV speech stimuli (i.e., the phoneme "ba" dubbed onto the viseme "ga"), we found that 55 CI users (87%) reported a fused percept of "da" or "tha" on at least one trial. After applying an error correction based on unisensory responses, we found that among those susceptible to the illusion, CI users experienced lower fusion than controls-a result that was concordant with results from the SIFI where the pairing of a single circle flashing on the screen with multiple beeps resulted in fewer illusory flashes for CI users. While illusion perception in these two tasks appears to be uncorrelated among CI users, we identified a negative correlation in the NH group. Because neither illusion appears to provide further explanation of variability in CI outcome measures, further research is needed to determine how these findings relate to CI users' speech understanding, particularly in ecological listening conditions that are naturally multisensory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrends in HearingSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207