Behavioural evidence for enhanced olfactory and trigeminal perception in congenital hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory deprivation, especially hearing loss (HL), offers a valuable model for studying neuroplasticity in the human brain and adaptive behaviours that support the daily lives of those with limited or absent sensory input. The study of olfactory function is particularly important as it is an understudied aspect of sensory deprivation. This study aimed to compare the effects of congenital HL on olfactory capacity by using psychophysical tasks. Methodological concerns from previous studies regarding the onset of HL and cognitive assessments were addressed. We recruited 11 individuals with severe-to-profound sensorineural HL (SNHL) since birth and 11 age- and sex-matched typical hearing non-signers. We used standardized neuropsychological tests to assess typical cognition among participants with SNHL. We evaluated olfactory functions by assessing olfactory detection threshold, odour discrimination and odour identification. Hearing-impaired participants outperformed their typical hearing counterparts in olfactory tasks. We further evaluated the accuracy and response time in identifying and localizing odours to disentangle olfactory sensitivity from trigeminal system sensitivity. Participants with SNHL demonstrated higher sensitivity to both the identification and localization tasks. These findings suggest that congenital SNHL is associated with enhanced higher-level olfactory processing and increased trigeminal sensitivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".