The development of multisensory facilitation for simple audio-visual information continues through adolescence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Significant variability characterizes the reported age ranges regarding the maturation or attainment of 'adult-like' ability for audio-visual (AV) multi-sensory integration (MSI). In part, this variability originates from diverse characteristics of unimodal audio and visual stimuli (e.g., social vs. non-social) used to assess MSI and the inconsistent developmental periods selected for cross-sectional evaluations. This study assessed the development of MSI for simple, non-social information from the early school-age years through to adulthood. Methods. One-hundred and eleven (n=111) neurotypical participants were placed into either child (6-9 ys, Mage=8.2), school-age (10-13 ys, Mage =12.0), adolescent (14-17 ys, Mage=15.0) or adult (18+ ys, Mage=22.7) age groups. Participants completed an audio-visual target detection task (Hershenson, 1962), presented with either a highly salient auditory (A) stimulus (beep), visual (V) stimulus (flash), or both stimuli at the same time (AV). Reaction times (RT) were recorded for a total of the 240 trials, with outliers (<100 or >1500 ms) excluded from analysis. Race Model analysis was conducted for each age group to compare audiovisual RTs with those expected from redundant stimuli, and a redundancy gain was calculated for each participant. Results. Increasing violations of the race model inequality as a function of age group were found, suggesting a progressive increase of AV multisensory facilitation for simple non-social information across developmental periods. Notably, the race model was violated through the 65th percentile of the RT distribution for the adolescent (14-17 ys) age group, which differed from that of the adult group (85th percentile). Conclusion. AV multisensory facilitation is not fully developed at adolescence, even when unimodal stimuli features are simple. This finding supports a later rather than earlier maturation period for AV MSI. These results also underscore the importance of including all development periods when assessing the development of AV MSI ability, including the adolescent age period.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".