The relationship between cognitive ability and susceptibility on the Sound-Induced Flash Illusion (SIFI) across development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Multisensory integration (MSI) is the ability to combine multiple sources of sensory information into one coherent whole. While understanding the developmental trajectory of MSI is important, it is imperative to account for other variables which may contribute to this ability, such as cognitive functioning (or IQ). MSI performance has been most frequently compared to other attributes (i.e., language), with IQ being scarcely considered as an associated attribute. The aim of this study was to examine the age at which MSI for non-social information matures and the role of IQ. Methods. 101 neurotypical participants were placed into child (6-9ys, Mage=7.6), school-age (10-13ys, Mage =11.8), adolescent (14-17ys, Mage=15.0) and adult (18+ys, Mage=22.3) age groups. All participants completed the Sound-Induced Flash Illusion (SIFI), where they were asked to indicate how many flashes were perceived while ignoring auditory cues. Performance on the fusion (2F1B) and fission (1F2B) conditions were examined. Participants also completed a cognitive assessment (Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-2; WASI-2), with a primary interest on perceptual reasoning (PRI) and verbal comprehension (VCI) indices. Results. A 2 (illusion conditions) x 4 (groups) ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of condition (p<.01) and interaction effect (p<.01), with post-hoc analyses demonstrating increased overall susceptibility for the fission condition; however, adults were significantly less susceptible on this condition compared to the other age groups. Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed that higher PRI scores were associated with increased susceptibility to the fission condition across age groups. Conclusion. Results suggest decreasing susceptibility solely to the fission illusion with increasing age, and that PRI may be related to susceptibility to this illusion. These results highlight the need to consider non-verbal IQ in assessing performance on non-social MSI tasks across development. Future studies should continue to explore the relationship between IQ and MSI, including social MSI and verbal IQ.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".