Older Adults with Clinically Normal Sensory and Cognitive Abilities Perceive Audiovisual Simultaneity and Temporal Order Differently than Younger Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that individual sensory and cognitive abilities often decline with older age; however, previous studies examining whether multisensory processes and multisensory integration also change with older age have been inconsistent. One possible reason for these inconsistencies may be due to differences across studies in how sensory and cognitive abilities have been characterized and controlled for in older adult participant groups. The current study examined whether multisensory (audiovisual) synchrony perception is different in younger and older adults using the audiovisual simultaneity judgement (SJ) and temporal order judgement (TOJ) tasks and explored whether performance on these audiovisual tasks was associated with unisensory (hearing, vision) and cognitive (global cognition and executive functioning) abilities within clinically normal limits. Healthy younger and older adults completed audiovisual SJ and TOJ tasks. Auditory-only and visual-only SJ tasks were also completed independently to assess temporal processing in hearing and vision. Older adults completed standardized assessments of hearing, vision, and cognition. Results showed that, compared to younger adults, older adults had wider temporal binding windows in the audiovisual SJ and TOJ tasks and larger points of subjective simultaneity in the TOJ task. No significant associations were found among the unisensory (standard baseline and unisensory SJ), cognitive, or audiovisual (SJ, TOJ) measures. These findings suggest that audiovisual integrative processes change with older age, even within clinically normal sensory and cognitive abilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".