Development and validation of a questionnaire for assessing visual and auditory spatial localization abilities in dual sensory impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial localization is important for social interaction and safe mobility, and relies heavily on vision and hearing. While people with vision or hearing impairment compensate with their intact sense, people with dual sensory impairment (DSI) may require rehabilitation strategies that take both impairments into account. There is currently no tool for assessing the joint effect of vision and hearing impairment on spatial localization in this large and increasing population. To this end, we developed a novel Dual Sensory Spatial Localization Questionnaire (DS-SLQ) that consists of 35 everyday spatial localization tasks. The DS-SLQ asks participants about their difficulty completing different tasks using only vision or hearing, as well as the primary sense they rely on for each task. We administered the DS-SLQ to 104 participants with heterogenous vision and hearing status. Rasch analysis confirmed the psychometric validity of the DS-SLQ and the feasibility of comparing vision and hearing spatial abilities in a unified framework. Vision and hearing impairment were associated with decreased visual and auditory spatial abilities. Differences between vision and hearing abilities predicted overall sensory reliance patterns. In DSI rehabilitation, DS-SLQ may be useful for measuring vision and hearing spatial localization abilities and predicting the better sense for completing different spatial localization tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".