Cross-modal neuroplasticity in partial hearing loss: a mini-review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory loss induces adaptive neural changes in the remaining non-deprived senses, known as cross-modal plasticity. Recent proposals of cross-modal plasticity suggest that it is a top-down, dynamic phenomenon that can occur through the lifespan and is initiated whether sensory loss is total (as in blindness or deafness) or more subtle (mild-to-moderate partial sensory loss). However, it is unclear whether adaptive plasticity differs between total and partial loss, because there is less research on the latter condition. Here we reviewed neuroimaging research on cross-modal plasticity in adult humans with mild-to-moderate hearing loss and compared it to three claims derived from deafness research. First, cross-modal plasticity is thought to involve both intra-modal strengthening of remaining senses and cross-modal recruitment of deprived cortical areas, but we were unable to identify strong evidence of cross-modal recruitment in adults with partial hearing loss. Second, cross-modal plasticity is believed to arise through top-down connections and implicates cognitive function, which agreed with our findings. Third, cross-modal plasticity is believed to enhance perception in the non-deprived senses. No study in our review supported this claim, but it is possible that cross-modal plasticity in partial hearing loss results in stronger modulation of auditory function by intact senses. In addition, many study outcomes in humans with partial loss were inconsistent. Overall, it may be premature to conclude that cross-modal plasticity operates the same for partial and total forms of sensory loss in humans, and we provide several recommendations for testing these claims in future research.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".