MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403172621 · doi:10.1037/pag0000850

Enhanced multisensory gain in older adults may be a by-product of inverse effectiveness: Evidence from a speeded response-time task.

2024· article· en· W4403172621 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura Schneeberger, Alyssa Lynn, Vanessa Scarcelli, Ala Seif, Ryan A. Stevenson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Aging · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWestern UniversityCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyProduct (mathematics)Developmental psychologyAudiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 34), except stimuli were presented at each participant's 50% detection threshold, identified with an adaptive psychophysical staircase, controlling for any influence of inverse effectiveness. Older adults were found to exhibit greater multisensory gain (as measured by race model violations) on stimulus- but not perception-matched tasks, thus aligning with the principle of inverse effectiveness. That is, when accounting for potential age-related differences in perceptual abilities, older adults no longer experienced greater benefit from multisensory integration. These two experiments together suggest that the age-related increases in multisensory integration previously reported may be in part due to age-related declines in vision and audition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and AgingSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207