The Impact of Premature Birth on Multisensory Processes in Very Preterm Schoolchildren

The Impact of Premature Birth on Multisensory Processes in Very Preterm Schoolchildren | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The Impact of Premature Birth on Multisensory Processes in Very Preterm Schoolchildren Marion Décaillet, Solange Denervaud, Cléo Huguenin-Virchaux, Laureline Besuchet, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3542746/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 06 Jul, 2024 Read the published version in npj Science of Learning → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Interactions between stimuli from different sensory modalities and their integration are central to daily life, contributing to improved perception. Being born prematurely and the subsequent hospitalization can have an impact not only on sensory processes, but also on the manner in which information from different senses is combined – i.e., multisensory processes. Very preterm (VPT) children (< 32 weeks gestational age) present impaired multisensory processes in early childhood persisting at least through the age of five. However, it remains largely unknown whether and how these consequences persist into later childhood. Here, we evaluated the integrity of auditory-visual multisensory processes in VPT schoolchildren. VPT children (N = 28; aged 8–10 years) received a standardized cognitive assessment and performed a simple detection task at their routine follow-up appointment. The simple detection task involved pressing a button as quickly as possible upon presentation of an auditory, visual, or simultaneous audio-visual stimulus. Compared to full-term (FT) children (N = 23; aged 6–11 years), reaction times of VPT children were generally slower and more variable, regardless of sensory modality. Nonetheless, both groups exhibited multisensory facilitation on mean reaction times and inter-quartile ranges. There was no evidence that standardized cognitive or clinical measures correlated with multisensory gains of VPT children. However, while gains in FT children exceeded predictions based on probability summation and thus forcibly invoked integrative processes, this was not the case for VPT children. Our findings provide evidence of atypical multisensory profiles in VPT children persisting into school-age. These results could help in targeting supportive interventions for this vulnerable population. Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Education multisensory auditory visual preterm premature development Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 INTRODUCTION Humans live in a multisensory environment, with information available to the different senses that need to be combined or segregated appropriately to generate coherent perceptions and behavior. Examples of the perceptual and behavioral benefits of multisensory processes extend from stimulus detection 1–4 to speech perception 5,6 , food appreciation 7,8 , as well as body consciousness 9,10 . Multisensory processes can also enhance decision-making and different types of learning 11,12 . In adults, multisensory processes have been well investigated 13–15 . By contrast, substantially less is known regarding the developmental trajectory of multisensory processes and how early life experience influences this trajectory. This is precisely the case of prematurity, for which long-term multisensory development has only been slightly investigated, even though it concerns roughly 10% of births worldwide, 10% of those being very preterm births (i.e., births occurring before 32 gestational weeks) 16,17 . Very preterm births may include adverse neurodevelopmental consequences, such as sensory processing and integration 18–20 . These difficulties are present during early development from the first months through toddlerhood 18,19 . Here, we investigated the consequences of very preterm birth on sensory processing and integration that persist through school age. Premature infants have immature nervous systems and experience altered sensory environments that could impact their functional development. During their hospitalization, infants are exposed to a completely different ex-utero context than their full-term peers. In the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), very preterm infants are surrounded by machines and thus are more exposed to mid- and high-frequency sounds and brighter, unnatural lighting 21 . This atypical environment and the necessary medical procedures could lead to various situations of dystimulation (i.e., inappropriate stimulations) 22–24 . Indeed, the stimuli experienced by premature neonates are oftentimes less targeted for infants’ neurodevelopment, instead focusing on their medical wellbeing. One consequence may therefore be less infant-directed and thus more incongruous stimuli 25 , which may in turn not be accurately integrated by the neonate and that could lead to future sensory difficulties such as hypo- and hyper- sensitivity 26 . In support, at discharge, premature infants present diminished brain responses to (multi)sensory stimuli 19,27,28 . As they grow up, young preterm children aged 2–5 years old continue to show sensory alterations across all sensory modalities (for a review, see Bröring et al. 23 ). However, there is a gap in the literature, as only a few studies have been conducted concerning long-term sensory consequences at school age. Through a sensory questionnaire, Wickremasinghe et al. found that nine-year-old very preterm children have atypical response patterns, including both hypo-responsivity and hyper-responsivity in various senses 29 . Bröring et al. conducted a case-controlled study and found that very preterm schoolchildren aged ~ 9.2 years present hyposensitivity and hypersensitivity, more specifically, in tactile perception, kinesthesia and graphesthesia 30 . Additionally, using a set-shifting task they also derived a measure of cross-modal interactions and observed no differences in accuracy or reaction times between preterm and full-term children. However, their task might assess cross-modal attention processes with constant updating of the motor response, rather than strictly multisensory integration 31 . Therefore, while this fundamental work sheds light on hyper- or hypo-sensory perception without impacting cross-modal interactions, no research has been conducted without a task that required matching different sensory information, focusing then only on high-level processes. It is currently known is that prematurely born schoolchildren are more likely to show long-term neurodevelopmental cognitive impairments and neuropsychiatric disorders 32–35 . At school age, 8-year-old very preterm children show poorer executive function skills even though some of them caught up many of their delays by the age of 12 36–39 . Additionally, their processing speed and working memory notably predict their neurological impairments and their school difficulties 40,41 . Indeed, processing speed mediates impairments in executive functions, which in turn play a role in school readiness 42 . Several works have drawn links between multisensory integration and some behaviours and cognitive abilities. First, atypical multisensory processes in early infancy have been associated with altered sensory profiles at 12 months of age and internalizing tendencies at 24 months of age 19 . Second, in healthy schoolchildren, low-level multisensory abilities predict higher-level cognition such as working memory and fluid intelligence 43 . Auditory-visual integration is also associated with reading abilities at a young age (between 5–8 years), whereas it is not the case afterward, underscoring how auditory-visual integration is important for learning to how to read 44 . Additionally, several correlations between multisensory integration and IQ have been reported. In a large study with 5 to 12-year-old schoolchildren, Birch & Belmont observed a positive association between IQ and multisensory integration that decreased with age 44 . More recently, Barutchu and colleagues have found that multisensory facilitation was not associated with IQ or reading abilities between 6 and 11 years of age in a quiet environment 45–47 . Nevertheless, when multisensory facilitation exceeded probability summation in noise, it was correlated with a higher IQ 46 . Rose et al. examined potential associations between sensory processing abilities at the ages of 7 months and 1 year on IQ scores throughout childhood in full-term and preterm children 48–50 . They found that this relationship between sensory processing and cognitive outcome is present during the entire childhood until 11 years of age, but that it weakened thereafter. To our knowledge, these are the only studies that investigated these associations in preterm children. If indeed these relationships between multisensory processes and cognitive abilities are also valid with very preterm schoolchildren, it would likely help to identify children most at-risk. As altered multisensory processes may be a precursor or a predictor of these cognitive impairments, support could be adapted accordingly. In schoolchildren, as well as adults, a simple detection task provides an efficient means of quantitatively assessing multisensory processes. This task typically involves a button-press response to the presentation of each stimulus in a randomized sequence of intermixed unisensory (i.e., auditory or visual) and multisensory (i.e., the simultaneous presentation of both auditory and visual stimuli) events, whose timing is unpredictable. From such a task, one can compare accuracy and reaction times to multisensory stimuli versus each unisensory condition to ascertain if performance is more accurate and/or faster under multisensory conditions; a phenomenon often referred to as the redundant signals effect (e.g., 51 ). It can in turn be queried whether multisensory facilitation as measured via the redundant signals effect is explainable by a race model or instead by a co-activation model 51,52 as well as by the age when these processes become mature 45,53 . When data are explainable by the race model, information from the different senses can independently initiate the motor response, and probability summation can account for any facilitation of behavior. By contrast, co-activation is invoked when facilitation of behavior exceeds probability summation, and by extension information from the different senses must interact prior to initiating the motor response 52 . Such notwithstanding, neural response interactions have been observed both when the race model is violated and satisfied 54,55 . Studies with healthy children have yielded mixed results, showing that multisensory integration and facilitation development is variable and not completely mature during childhood 56 . During the first 6 months of life, multisensory matching 57 and the transfer of information from one sensory modality to another start to become mature 58,59 . Multisensory facilitation develops through the first months, indeed young infants show multisensory facilitation from at least one month, but only infants aged 8 months and older started to exhibit some evidence for co-activation under certain conditions 60 . During childhood, Barutchu et al. have not observed a clear developmental trajectory of multisensory integration 45 . Whereas there was no clear evidence of co-activation at 6 and 10 years, children aged 7–9 years presented evidence of violation of the race model. Therefore, multisensory facilitation seems to be still immature and fluctuating even in late childhood. Similarly, Brandwein et al. have also found that even if a multisensory facilitation effect appeared at a young age, its processes became mature around adolescence 53 . More specifically, the extent of co-activation, measured as the magnitude as well as number of children exhibiting such, increased with age. One postulation is that this facilitation process is not automatic and effortless for children, but rather may rely on the maturation of high-level cognitive and top-down processes 45 . To our knowledge, however, none of these prior studies specifically reported or accounted for the gestational age at birth of their participants. Thus, in view of previous research and the lack of long-term information, the primary aim of the current study was to characterize the multisensory processing profile of very preterm children at school age. Using a simple detection task without the need for stimulus associations, low-level stimulus processing could be investigated. Our secondary aim followed from evidence that multisensory gains in simple detection (i.e., the percentage difference in mean reaction time between the multisensory and the faster unisensory stimulus) can predict global cognition in schoolchildren 43 . Therefore, we assessed correlations between multisensory gains observed in very preterm schoolchildren and neuropsychological test scores. Except for one ongoing study by Neel et al. investigating the benefits of a multisensory intervention in the neonatal intensive care units, there is no proven sensory support intervention 61 . Accurately understanding the specificity of sensory difficulties in very preterm children would enable us to tailor support and to create appropriate sensory rehabilitation for neonates and children at an early age. MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants All parents provided their written, informed consent for their child to participate. The project was approved by the state ethics committee (CER-VD, protocol no. 2019 − 01056) and conforms to principles outlaid in the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. Very preterm Children This is an observational study of fifty-one very preterm (VPT) children previously hospitalized in a level III NICU who were recruited in the main project entitled Long-term impact of early nutritional and pain management in very preterm infants on brain health and function at their birth 62 . From July 2020 to October 2021, on their last follow-up appointment at eight years old, 41 children participated (i.e., ten children did not take part in the study because of death (n = 2), lost contact at a previous follow-up visit (n = 2), complex social situation (n = 2), unreachable parents (n = 2) or refusal to participate (n = 2)). Finally, due to incomplete testing, the final sample included twenty-eight very preterm children (M gestational age = 27 weeks, SD = 2.80), aged 8–10 years (M age = 8.80, SD = 0.51, 15 girls). Full-term Children As a reference group, data from twenty-three full-term (FT) children aged 6–11 (M age = 9.00, SD = 1.65, 11 girls) were selected from an existing database based on age ( t (25.4) = 0.55, p = 0.584) and gender (ꭓ 2 ( 1 ) = 0.515, p = 0.48). They participated in a parallel study about neurodevelopment and schooling experience and underwent the same simple detection task detailed below. Their non-prematurity was assessed through a questionnaire, but no precise gestational age (GA) was collected. Tasks and Procedure The testing of the VPT children took place during the follow-up appointment at the Development Unit of the Lausanne University Hospital following their premature birth. They were tested individually in a quiet room. FT children were tested individually either in a quiet room at Lausanne University Hospital or at their school. The task was presented and controlled using the E-Prime 2.0 Software (Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA) displayed on a PC laptop. Simple Detection Task Visual (V), auditory (A) or audiovisual (AV) stimuli were presented to children. The visual stimuli were composed of a white cloud, or a white star presented in the middle of a black background. The auditory stimuli were either of two types of tones (44100 Hz digitization; 16 bits stereo) that varied in terms of their spectral composition: a whistle ranging from 18700 Hz to 19600 Hz and a yawn ranging from 20Hz to 21000Hz. The audio-visual stimuli were the synchronous presentation of the visual and auditory stimuli. Each type of stimulus was randomly presented 20 times. Therefore, the children completed 60 trials. Stimulus duration was 500ms and during the pseudo-randomized inter-stimulus interval (i.e., 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800 and 1900ms), a small white fixation dot was presented. Children were asked to press the keyboard spacebar as fast as possible each time they saw or heard something. We recorded both accuracy and reaction time. Socioeconomic status (SES) Given the differences between experimental versus clinical contexts, SES was not assessed with the same questionnaire for the VPT and FT groups. SES of the VPT group was calculated with the Largo score, with values ranging from 1 to 6 63 . Lower scores correspond to higher education degrees (i.e., university education), and higher scores correspond to shorter formal education (i.e., elementary school, occupations without apprenticeship or professional designation). We summed and averaged the scores of both parents, converted them to a percentage and then subtracted them from 100% to allow for comparison with SES scores from the FT group. SES of the FT group was assessed according to both parents’ educational level and current job, both scoring from 1 to 4 (1 representing lower level) 64 . We also summed and averaged scores across both parents and then converted them to a percentage to allow for comparison between groups. Clinical Batteries During their follow-up appointment, several clinical batteries and questionnaires were also completed by VPT children or their parents. Clinical batteries were not completed by the FT children. Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) This instrument consists of a questionnaire completed by the parents and that assesses diverse sensory processing, praxis, and social participation 65 . Parents rated each of the 75 statements about their child's behaviour by whether it had occurred never/sometimes/often/always in the past month. In the present study, the scales Vision , Audition , as well as the total score were considered. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V) This tool evaluates the intellectual ability of children 66 . In this study, we considered the total IQ score, the Working Memory Index and Processing Speed Index . The working memory index is measured using two subtests, the Picture Span (i.e., remembrance of a sequence of pictures in the correct order and the selection of these images from a larger picture array) and the Digit Span (i.e., the recall of a sequence of numbers in the original, reverse, and ascending order). Processing speed is composed of the subtest Code (i.e., transcription of a digit-symbol code using a specific key) and the subtest Symbol Search (i.e., detection of a target within a line of symbols). Data analyses For both accuracy and reaction time (RT) analyses from the simple detection task, only responses given in a valid reaction time (RTs ranging between 150ms and 2000ms, and RT ± 3 SD for an individual child collapsed across all conditions, i.e., across all participants, ~ 6.93% of the trials were discarded) were included 43,67 . Accuracy was computed as the percentage of detected stimuli. In addition, we computed the individual Interquartile Range (IQR) of the RTs distribution for each condition. Analyses were performed using Jamovi (Version 0.9) Computer Software and R.3.6.3 68 . The statistical significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. First, we assessed and compared the frequency of sensory dominance (i.e. the unisensory modality with faster RTs) between VPT and FT children with a Chi-squared test. Then, we compared the unisensory and multisensory accuracy, RT, and IQRs as well as the multisensory gain between VPT and FT children. As some accuracy, reaction time and IQR distributions were not normally distributed in both groups and because the homogeneity of variance was violated (Levene’s Test p < 0.05 for all stimulus conditions), we performed nonparametric tests to investigate the impact of Stimulus Condition (i.e., Friedman Test) and of Group (i.e., Kruskal Wallis Test) on the accuracy, mean RTs, and IQRs. In addition, a first multisensory gain was calculated as the relative difference between the mean reaction time to multisensory and the faster unisensory condition (i.e., [(Mean RT fastest unisensory condition – RT multisensory condition )/RT fastest unisensory condition ] * 100). A second multisensory gain was computed in the same way but based on IQRs instead of RTs. We performed a t-test on these two multisensory gains to compare both groups. Second, to investigate the underlying multisensory processes and to compare the presence of the ‘redundant signal effect’ (RSE), we computed the Race Model inequality 52 in both groups. Inaccurate trials where children failed to respond in the given RT period were removed from the analyses. Each subject’s RT for each condition was treated individually. The cumulative probability (CP) distributions were calculated for each condition after having been normalized in terms of the percentile of the range of reaction times across all stimulus conditions (i.e., bin widths of 5% were used in the current study). Then group-averaged cumulative probability values were calculated for each modality. The predicted values by the model were calculated as [(CP auditive +CP visual )-(CP auditive *CP visual )] and compared to the observed audio-visual cumulative probability for each bin. For each percentile where the predicted values were exceeded by the observed simultaneous values (i.e., audio-visual stimuli), the race model was violated, and the co-activation hypothesis was favoured. Paired t-tests (one-tailed) were performed to test the reliability of this violation. Finally, to explore if the multisensory gain in very preterm children was related to the neuropsychological measures, partial correlations were performed between clinical and cognitive measures, and the multisensory gain with SES and gestational age as covariables. As Vision and Audition scales were not normally distributed partial Spearman correlations were computed. RESULTS Demographics While sex and age were not different between VPT and FT children, FT children had a significantly higher socio-economic status. VPT children scored in the normal range for processing speed and working memory index on the WISC. In addition, their IQ evaluated with the WISC was also in the norm (for details, see Table 1 ). Table 1 . Demographic data. Mean ± SD are indicated in parentheses, except for the percentage of girls. Regarding the SES, note that data from 5 individuals were missing for the FT group and from 3 individuals for the VPT group. For the cognitive measures of the WISC, due to the absence of similar measures in the FT group, norms were used. Measure VPT FT p-value N (% girls) 28 (53.57%) 23 (43.48) .48 Age in yrs 8.80 (0.51) 9.00 (1.65) .584 GA in weeks 27 (2.80) NA NA SES 57.2 (24.8) 78.2 (18.7) .004 WISC- Total (IQ) 105 (13.3) 100 (15) NA WISC – Processing speed 99.4 (15.8) 100 (15) NA WISC – Working Memory 102 (17.2) 100 (15) NA Auditory and visual acuity of the VPT children During the neonatal period, auditory evoked potentials were classified as normal for all VPT infants. And by the age of 8, none of them had any hearing impairment. Regarding vision, two neonates suffered from grade I or II retinopathy of prematurity. One was treated with laser and the second one normalized without treatment. Both had no persistent sequalae. At 8 years old, 10 children were wearing corrective glasses for various pathologies, including 9 with complete correction and 1 without binocular vision. Moreover, one VPT child suffered from strabismus and was undergoing neuro-visual rehabilitation. Simple Detection Task Sensory Dominance Sensory dominance, operationally defined here as the modality resulting in faster unisensory RTs in each participant (see also Romei et al., 2013 and Murray et al., 2018 for similar approaches), was similar between VPT and FT children (χ 2 = 0.48, p =0.49). There was a significantly greater proportion of visual dominance compared to auditory dominance in both FT children (78% vs. 22%, p =.011) and VPT children (86% vs. 14%, p <.001). Accuracy The Friedman test on mean Accuracy showed a main effect of Stimulus Condition, (χ 2 (2)=7.32, p =.0.03), which was due to lower accuracy for auditory ( M =91.6%, SD =8.32) than for multisensory ( M =94.7%, SD =7.92) stimuli (i.e., Dubin-Conover pairwise comparison: p =.007). But visual ( M =92.1%, SD =11.1) presented an intermediate accuracy which was not significatively different from auditory and multisensory conditions. The Kruskall-Wallis test showed that the general accuracy of FT children ( M =92.3%, SD =8.45) was similar to the accuracy of VPT children ( M =93.2%, SD =6.69), (χ 2 (2)=0.01, p =0.94), as well as for each condition separately (see Table 2). The inclusion of SES as a covariate did not change this pattern of results. Table 2 . Accuracy and standard deviation for each modality on the simple detection task and its comparison between VPT and FT groups. Stimulus Condition VPT FT Chi-square p ε 2 Visual 91.6% (12.6) 92.7% (9.38) 0.003 0.953 6.83e-5 Auditory 92.5% (8.11) 90.4% (8.61) 0.77 0.38 0.02 Multisensory 95.4% (7.06) 93.8% (8.94) 0.24 0.63 0.004 Reaction Times The Friedman test on mean RTs showed a main effect of Stimulus Condition, (χ 2 (2)=74.9, p <.001), which was due to generally faster RTs for multisensory ( M =415ms, SD =92.8) than for either visual ( M =457ms, SD =103) or auditory ( M =510ms, SD =138) stimuli (all Durbin-Conover pairwise comparisons between each stimulus condition p <.001). The Kruskall-Wallis test showed a main effect of Group; FT children ( M =366ms, SD =37.9) being generally faster than VPT children ( M =538ms, SD =79.1), χ 2 (1)=35.3, p <.001, ε 2 =0.71 (Fig. 1A). This was the case for each stimulus condition (i.e., visual: M FT =370ms, SD =38.2 vs M VPT =529ms, SD =80.7, χ 2 (1)=33.8, p <.001, ε 2 =0.68; auditory: M FT =395ms, SD =47.8 vs M VPT =605ms, SD =113, χ 2 (1)=34.7, p <.001, ε 2 =0.69; and multisensory: M FT =335ms, SD =31.6 vs M VPT =481ms, SD =79.1, χ 2 (1)=35.3, p <.001, ε 2 =0.71). This pattern of results remained the same when adding the SES as a covariate. Variability The Friedman test on IQRs showed a main effect of Stimulus Condition, (χ 2 (2)=56.7, p <.001), which was due to smaller IQR for multisensory ( M =76.8, SD =76.8) than for either visual ( M =97.9, SD =58.4) or for auditory ( M =140, SD =82.7) stimuli; the latter of which also significantly differed from each other (all Durbin-Conover pairwise comparisons between each stimulus condition p <.001). The Kruskall-Wallis test showed a main effect of Group; FT children ( M =60.7 SD =11.3) having generally smaller IQR than VPT children ( M =141, SD =60.8), χ 2 (1)=33.6, p <.001, ε 2 =0.67 (Fig. 1B). This was the case for each stimulus condition (i.e., visual: M FT =55.8, SD =12.3 vs M VPT =133, SD =58.7, χ 2 (1)=25.5, p <.001, ε 2 =0.51; auditory: M FT =83.4, SD =30.6 vs M VPT =186, SD =83.5, χ 2 (1)=21.4, p <.001, ε 2 =0.43; and multisensory: M FT =43.0, SD =9.78 vs M VPT =105, SD =95.2, χ 2 (1)=21.8, p <.001, ε 2 =0.44). Multisensory Gain Reaction Times . The percentage multisensory gain on RT was similar in FT children ( M =9.08%, SD =2.29) and in VPT children ( M =7.52%, SD =7.87), ( t (32.4)=1, p = .33; Cohen’s d=0.27). Variability . The percentage multisensory gain on IQR was similar in FT ( M =16.6%, SD =9.61) and in VPT children ( M =9.61%, SD =48.7), ( t (38.6)=0.69, p = .50; Cohen’s d=0.19). Race Model Inequality There was slight violation of the Race Model inequality in VPT children for the 0, 10, 15, 25, 30, and 35 quantiles (Fig. 2). However, in no case was the cumulative probability for the multisensory condition significantly higher than the cumulative probability for the values predicted by the race model (for details, see Table 3 ). By contrast, the race model was significantly violated in FT children for the 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 quantiles. The cumulative probability for the multisensory condition was significantly higher than the cumulative probability for the values predicted by the race model for these eight quantiles (for details, see Table 3 ). Table 3. The average cumulative probability (and standard deviation) for the simultaneous condition with that predicted by the race model as well as the corresponding paired t-test and p-values for all quantiles in VPT children (left) and FT children (right). VPT FT Cumulative Probability Cumulative Probability Quantile (%) Simultaneous Predicted t p value Simultaneous Predicted t p value 0 0.03(0.03) 0.03(0.03) 0.00 0.5 0.01(0.01) 0.002(0.01) 2.87 0.004** 5 0.06(0.09) 0.07(0.06) -0.41 0.66 0.03(0.03) 0.003(0.01) 4.00 <.001*** 10 0.15(0.20) 0.14(0.13) 0.77 0.22 0.09(0.08) 0.03(0.06) 4.35 <.001*** 15 0.22(0.24) 0.21(0.20) 0.33 0.37 0.22(0.16) 0.09(0.13) 5.69 <.001*** 20 0.31(0.27) 0.31(0.27) -0.01 0.50 0.38(0.22) 0.19(0.19) 7.49 <.001*** 25 0.44(0.30) 0.43(0.29) 0.79 0.22 0.53(0.23) 0.33(0.23) 6.88 <.001*** 30 0.56(0.28) 0.56(0.30) 0.14 0.45 0.65(0.20) 0.50(0.24) 7.11 <.001*** 35 0.57(0.28) 0.64(0.30) 1.31 0.10 0.73(0.19) 0.65(0.22) 3.93 <.001*** 40 0.74(0.19) 0.75(0.18) -0.43 0.66 0.79(0.17) 0.76(0.19) 1.20 0.12 45 0.81(0.15) 0.84(0.12) -1.53 0.93 0.82(0.17) 0.83(0.18) -0.52 0.69 50 0.86(0.12) 0.89(0.08) -1.85 0.96 0.84(0.17) 0.87(0.15) -1.39 0.91 55 0.88(0.10) 0.92(0.07) -2.11 0.98 0.85(0.17) 0.9(.015) -2.43 0.99 60 0.90(0.10) 0.94(0.05) -2.41 0.99 0.87(0.17) 0.92(0.14) -2.72 0.99 65 0.91(0.10) 0.95(0.04) -2.87 1 0.88(0.17) 0.93(0.13) -2.86 1 70 0.92(0.09) 0.96(0.04) -3.16 1 0.88(0.17) 0.93(0.13) -3.22 1 75 0.93(0.08) 0.98(0.03) -3.08 1 0.89(0.17) 0.94(0.12) -3.30 1 80 0.93(0.08) 0.98(0.03) -3.15 1 0.89(0.17) 0.94(0.11) -3.34 1 85 0.94(0.08) 0.98(0.03) -3.00 1 0.89(0.17) 0.95(0.11) -3.15 1 90 0.94(0.07) 0.98(0.02) -3.29 1 0.89(0.17) 0.95(0.11) -3.15 1 95 0.95(0.07) 0.99(0.02) -3.09 1 0.89(0.17) 0.95(0.11) -3.16 1 100 0.96(0.07) 0.99(0.02) -3.27 1 0.90(0.17) 0.96(0.10) -3.03 1 Relationships between multisensory gains and neuropsychological scores in VPT VPT children scored in the normal range on all selected scales of the SPM questionnaire and WISC-V tests (for details, see Table 4 ). By controlling for gestational age and SES, partial Spearman correlations were carried out. The multisensory gain was not significantly correlated with any of the clinical or cognitive measures (for details, see Table 5 ). Table 4. Neuropsychological tests for very preterm children. Note . SPM = Sensory Processing Measure, WISC = Wechsler Intelligence Scale Children, Mean = T-scores Mean (SD) Norms IQR SPM – Vision 48.9 (6.80) <60 13 SPM – Audition 48.8 (8.85) <60 13 SPM – Total 51.3 (7.11) <60 6 WISC – Processing Speed 99.4 (15.8) 100 (15) 16 WISC – Working Memory 102 (17.2) 100 (15) 18 WISC - Total 105 (13.3) 100 (15) 15 Table 5 . Partial correlations between the multisensory gain and clinical and cognitive measures, controlling for SES and gestational age. Variables Multisensory Gain p value SPM – Vision -0.24 0.32 SPM – Audition -0.05 0.86 SPM – Total 0.11 0.66 WISC – Working Memory 0.02 0.92 WISC – Processing Speed -0.02 0.94 WISC – IQ Total -0.15 0.51 Digit Span 0.12 0.59 Digit Span - Ascending 0.06 0.78 DISCUSSION Despite their importance in daily life and their contributions to cognitive functions, how multisensory processes develop has been under-investigated, especially in children more at risk for neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders, such as VPT children. Here, we provide some of the first data on low-level multisensory processes in VPT children at school age. While neuropsychological assessments were in the normal range, RTs at the simple detection task were generally both slower and more variable in VPT schoolchildren. VPT children did exhibit multisensory facilitation like their FT peers. However, for VPT children, this facilitation was fully explained by mechanisms based on probability summation. By contrast, multisensory facilitation in FT children exceeded predictions based on probability summation and instead entailed integrative processes (see also Barutchu et al., for similar findings in FT children 71 ). These results suggest that both sensory as well as multisensory processes are altered in a long-lasting way by early-life events. First, our findings reveal that VPT children showed generally slower RT to unisensory and multisensory stimulus conditions. This was the case even though both FT and VPT children exhibited similar, near-ceiling accuracy rates for all stimulus conditions, suggesting that this difference was not the result of a speed-accuracy trade-off or general inattentiveness (see 72 for discussion). Likewise, IQ scores from VPT children were within the normal range, implying that the observed slowing was not the result of a general difference in global cognition, in particular the processing speed. It thus appears that their sensory detection capacity (i.e., accuracy) is not impaired, but it takes them longer to respond to stimulation. Accuracy and RT in the FT children here are highly concordant with values reported by prior works 53,71 . The slowing of RTs in VPT children is similar to what was observed in 6-year-old VPT by de Kieviet et al. in visual attention task 73 (see also Aarnoudse-Moens et al. about processing speed 74 ). Our results thus indicate that this slowing persists into later childhood. In contrast, when it concerns high-level detection (i.e., sensory matching task), VPT children have not exhibited slower RT 30 . Therefore, while they present impaired low-level multisensory detection mechanisms (i.e., simple detection task), VPT children might rely on other – perhaps compensatory - mechanisms when completing higher-level cognitive tasks. Whether and how such invocation of compensatory strategies and mechanisms contribute to the observed higher risk for learning differences and poorer scholastic achievement in VPT individuals remains to be fully characterised, particularly if such derive, even partially, from the persistent general slowing we observed here. Second, despite more variable simple RT across all sensory modalities, VPT children nonetheless exhibited percentage gains equivalent to those of their FT peers both when mean RT and their IQR were quantified. This pattern of results runs somewhat counter to what might otherwise be predicted from a strict application of the so-called principle of inverse effectiveness 75 . That is, it could be contended that the slower and more variable RT observed in VPT children are indicative of reduced stimulus effectiveness (compared to FT children). As such, it would follow that larger percentage gains would be expected in the VPT children. However, it is also the case that the RT distributions in response to unisensory conditions in the VPT children were less overlapping. Prior work has shown that larger gains are observed when these distributions are more superimposed 76 (see also Otto et al. 77 ). Such notwithstanding, we consider it particularly noteworthy that performance variability was significantly decreased (i.e., became less variable) under multisensory stimulus conditions in both full-term and preterm schoolchildren alike and despite general differences in RT speed. Multisensory stimulus contexts may thus provide an access point for remediating situations where highly variable behaviour may be a contributor to poorer performance and cognition, as has been reported, for example, in children with ADHD 78 . Third, while multisensory gains in FT children necessitated integrative processes, this was not the case here for our group of VPT children. We would hasten to note that even though there was no violation of probability summation in VPT children, this does not necessarily exclude the presence of nonlinear neuronal response interactions 54,79 . Such notwithstanding, the presence of multisensory gains in VPT children that are moreover fully explained by probability summation suggests different underlying neural processes subserving multisensory processes across the two groups of children. Therefore, further investigations are needed to comprehensively understand those mechanisms using brain mapping and/or imaging tools. As these multisensory and integrative processes are thought to mature during late childhood in FT children 53,71 , an additional question arises as to whether differences we observe in VPT reflect a delay or a persistent deficit. Accordingly, future studies should include adolescents and adults to investigate the complete developmental trajectory of multisensory processes in preterm-born individuals. Multisensory integration has been found to have a cascading effect on higher-order cognitive skills (e.g., Denervaud et al., 43 ; for a review see Wallace et al., 80 ). Therefore, this atypical sensory profile could not only affect performance in laboratory settings, but also daily life activities, including schooling and academic performance. At school, audition and vision are often paired and contribute to various learning processes, in particular regarding language and reading. Indeed, poorer readers exhibit impaired audiovisual integration 44,81,82 . In addition, multisensory integration also interacts with memory functions 11,83 . One possibility is that altered multisensory processes in VPT schoolchildren could explain in part their academic difficulties in many domains 84–86 . It is therefore particularly important to develop sensory intervention and rehabilitation strategies to enhance multisensory integration as early as possible. Several protective measures are already being implemented to reduce the impact of the hospitalization in the NICU and related atypical sensory stimulation. Indeed, since the last 20 years, implementation of the developmental care has spread out and developed, by encompassing the broader concept of family integrated care 87 . This care approach regroups different neuroprotective measures such as skin-to-skin contact, aiming at minimizing stress and pain, and partnering with families to create the best healing environment as possible 88 according to the recommendations of the European Foundation for the Care of Newborn Infants (EFCNI) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Another resource developed is the single-family room, which allows for lower noise levels, and provides better light control, often with more natural light. But these rooms also come with other disadvantages and cannot be adapted to all centers 89 . In 2011–2012, at the time of their neonatal hospitalization, the VPT children of our cohort had beneficiated from some of these strategies, but the protective measures have since improved and therefore represent a promising way of preventive actions of long-term multisensory impairments that need to be consolidated. Finally, contrarily to FT children where the multisensory gain predicted measures of global cognition 43 , in VPT children cognitive and clinical sensory measures did not correlate with percentages of multisensory gain. This result combined with the fact that they only showed little high-level cognitive deficit could indicate the use of compensatory mechanisms, akin to what has been invoked in other works that did not observe performance differences between VPT and FT children. Concerning the Sensory Processing Measure, this questionnaire might assess the sensory reactivity (i.e., behavioural response to a sensory stimulus), whereas the simple detection task relies more on the sensory sensitivity (i.e., perception of the sensory stimulus). These two concepts might be independent of each other 90 . It is likewise possible that the failure to observe significant correlations here may be due (at least in part) to the rather homogenous and high scores on the neuropsychological tests. It is noteworthy that our findings are in line with atypical patterns of multisensory processes found among various neurodevelopmental disorders. Indeed, while there is a lack of studies regarding prematurity, multisensory integration has been well-examined in diverse neurodevelopmental disorders. Using the same type of simple detection task, Harrar et al. have found the same pattern of results (i.e., RT slowing in every stimulus conditions and fewer race model violations) with adults with developmental dyslexia 81 . Likewise, Salles et al., have also observed slower RT and diminished percentage multisensory gains in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome 91 , which itself has a higher incidence among preterm than full-term births 92 . In children, atypical multisensory integration has been found in individuals with autism 93 and ADHD 94 . However, most of these studies, including those with healthy children, do not report gestational age, but it is likely important that researchers systematically report such information. Some limitations of this study are worth mentioning. One limitation is that the VPT group is generally healthier than what is commonly reported in the literature 95,96 . Although this situation is hopefully becoming increasingly common thanks to advances in healthcare and their global dissemination/access, it does not represent the entire population of VPT children. Therefore, future research might want to investigate multisensory processes in VPT children with more serious impairments as these are likely children particularly at risk for long-term sequelae. Another consideration is the difference in SES between the groups. While we included SES as a covariate in our analyses here, this difference nonetheless underscores the importance of considering such factors both in research and in applications of findings when ideating interventions and/or rehabilitation strategies 97 . Another potential consideration is that the VPT children were carrying out the task as part as their clinical follow-up, which theoretically could have induced more stress than for FT children. In the current study, we focused on vision and auditory, but as young VPT children show impairments in all sensory modalities 23 , future studies should test other senses, as well as behavioural responses, to evaluate more comprehensively their multisensory profiles. In this regard, it would likewise be informative for future works to obtain scholastic achievement data to allow for a more direct comparison between sensory and multisensory response profiles and everyday skills. In conclusion, these findings highlighted the persistent effects of prematurity into school age that manifest as altered sensory and multisensory processing. Therefore, there is a need for sensory interventions in the neonatal period such as proposed by Neel et al. 61 to improve the standard developmental care in the NICU as well as in early childhood to enhance their unisensory and multisensory processes that provide critical scaffolding for cognitive abilities and behaviour throughout the lifespan 4 . Indeed, some supportive therapies are offered such as occupational therapy for sensorial hypersensitivity, visual therapy by orthoptists or hearing aids. But these therapies are only proposed to children with overt impairments and are not intended for cognitive purposes. Thus, our results provide evidence for developing new supportive interventions strengthening multisensory cognitive processes and targeting all vulnerable children. Declarations AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS SD, JS, and MD conceived of this specific study and its research questions. MD and SD collected the simple detection task data. SD extracted these data and provided the data of the reference group. CHV and LB collected and scored the neuropsychological data and CHV revised the manuscript. MD conducted the statistical analyses and wrote the first draft of the manuscript with additional edits, feedback, and guidance from J.S and M.M.M. MMM supervised and guided the analyses and revised the manuscript. JS and CF designed the main longitudinal study and revised the manuscript. JS supervised the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our warmest thanks go to all the children and parents who took part in this longitudinal study and who have continued to participate over the years, making it possible to carry out various studies within our group. FUNDING This work was supported by Fondation W. et E. Grand d’Hauteville in Lausanne (Switzerland). The funder played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Marion Décaillet, upon reasonable request. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT All authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests. ETHICS STATEMENT The project was reviewed and approved by the state ethics committee (CER-VD, protocol no. 2019-01056) and conforms to principles outlaid in the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. References Diederich, A. & Colonius, H. Why two “Distractors” are better than one: modeling the effect of non-target auditory and tactile stimuli on visual saccadic reaction time. Exp. Brain Res. 179 , 43–54 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0768-0 Gillmeister, H. & Eimer, M. Tactile enhancement of auditory detection and perceived loudness. Brain Res. 1160 , 58–68 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.041 Lovelace, C. T., Stein, B. E. & Wallace, M. T. An irrelevant light enhances auditory detection in humans: a psychophysical analysis of multisensory integration in stimulus detection. Cogn. Brain Res. 17 , 447–453 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00160-5 Murray, M. M., Lewkowicz, D. J., Amedi, A. & Wallace, M. T. Multisensory Processes: A Balancing Act across the Lifespan. Trends Neurosci. 39 , 567–579 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27288-2 Chandrasekaran, C., Trubanova, A., Stillittano, S., Caplier, A. & Ghazanfar, A. A. The Natural Statistics of Audiovisual Speech. PLOS Comput. Biol. 5 , e1000436 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000436 Sumby, W. H. & Pollack, I. Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26 , 212–215 (1954). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907309 Simon, S. A., de Araujo, I. E., Gutierrez, R. & Nicolelis, M. A. The neural mechanisms of gustation: a distributed processing code. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7 , 890–901 (2006). Verhagen, J. V. & Engelen, L. The neurocognitive bases of human multimodal food perception: Sensory integration. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30 , 613–650 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.11.003 Blanke, O., Slater, M. & Serino, A. Behavioral, Neural, and Computational Principles of Bodily Self-Consciousness. Neuron 88 , 145–166 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.029 Press, C., Taylor-Clarke, M., Kennett, S. & Haggard, P. Visual enhancement of touch in spatial body representation. Exp. Brain Res. 154 , 238–245 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1651-x Matusz, P. J., Wallace, M. T. & Murray, M. M. A multisensory perspective on object memory. Neuropsychologia 105 , 243–252 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.008 Seitz, A. R., Kim, R. & Shams, L. Sound Facilitates Visual Learning. Curr. Biol. 16 , 1422–1427 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.048 Colonius, H. & Diederich, A. Formal models and quantitative measures of multisensory integration: a selective overview. Eur. J. Neurosci. 51 , 1161–1178 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13813 The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes . (CRC Press, 2011). doi:10.1201/9781439812174. Stein, B. E. The new handbook of multisensory processing . (Mit Press, 2012). Blencowe, H. et al. National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. The lancet 379 , 2162–2172 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4 Chawanpaiboon, S. et al. Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 7 , e37–e46 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0 Key, A. P. F., Lambert, E. W., Aschner, J. L. & Maitre, N. L. Influence of gestational age and postnatal age on speech sound processing in NICU infants. Psychophysiology 49 , 720–731 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01353.x Maitre, N. L. et al. Neonatal Multisensory Processing in Preterm and Term Infants Predicts Sensory Reactivity and Internalizing Tendencies in Early Childhood. Brain Topogr. 33 , 586–599 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-020-00791-4 Wilson-Costello, D., Friedman, H., Minich, N., Fanaroff, A. A. & Hack, M. Improved survival rates with increased neurodevelopmental disability for extremely low birth weight infants in the 1990s. Pediatrics 115 , 997–1003 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0221 El-Metwally, D. E. & Medina, A. E. The potential effects of NICU environment and multisensory stimulation in prematurity. Pediatr. Res. 88 , 161–162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-019-0738-4 Bastien, A. Les stimulations auditives et pratiques langagières auprès de nouveau-nés prématurés, dans la démarche des soins de développement en service de néonatologie : revue de littérature. (2019). Bröring, T., Oostrom, K. J., Lafeber, H. N., Jansma, E. P. & Oosterlaan, J. Sensory modulation in preterm children: Theoretical perspective and systematic review. PLOS ONE 12 , e0170828 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170828 Guittard, C. et al. Protocol for a prospective multicenter longitudinal randomized controlled trial (CALIN) of sensory-tonic stimulation to foster parent child interactions and social cognition in very premature infants. Front. Pediatr. 10 , 913396 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.913396 Allain, A., Wehrli, A. & Roy, A. Une alliance de compétences pour lutter contre la douleur du nouveau-né prématuré. Soins PédiatriePuériculture 38 , 20–24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spp.2017.09.004 Goulet, M. Les troubles de l’oralité alimentaire chez l’enfant au développement normo-typique et chez l’enfant autiste. Apports de la prise en charge pluridisciplinaire en groupe, selon l’approche sensori-motrice d’A. Bullinger. (2019). Key, A. P. F., Lambert, E. W., Aschner, J. L. & Maitre, N. L. Influence of gestational age and postnatal age on speech sound processing in NICU infants. Psychophysiology 49 , 720–731 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01353.x Maitre, N. L. et al. The Dual Nature of Early-Life Experience on Somatosensory Processing in the Human Infant Brain. Curr. Biol. 27 , 1048–1054 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.036 Wickremasinghe, A. C. et al. Children born prematurely have atypical Sensory Profiles. J. Perinatol. 33 , 631–635 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2013.12 Bröring, T. et al. Sensory processing difficulties in school-age children born very preterm: An exploratory study. Early Hum. Dev. 117 , 22–31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2017.12.003 ten Oever, S. et al. The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing. Exp. Brain Res. 234 , 1307–1323 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4590-z Doyle, L. W., Spittle, A., Anderson, P. J. & Cheong, J. L. Y. School-aged neurodevelopmental outcomes for children born extremely preterm. Arch. Dis. Child. 106 , 834–838 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2021-321668 Joseph, R. M. et al. Neurocognitive and Academic Outcomes at Age 10 Years of Extremely Preterm Newborns. Pediatrics 137 , e20154343 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4343 Rose, S. A. & Feldman, J. F. Memory and Processing Speed in Preterm Children at Eleven Years: A Comparison with Full-Terms. Child Dev. 67 , 2005–2021 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/1131606 Soleimani, F., Zaheri, F. & Abdi, F. Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Outcomes After Preterm Birth. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 16 , e17965 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.17965 Réveillon, M., Hüppi, P. S. & Barisnikov, K. Inhibition difficulties in preterm children: Developmental delay or persistent deficit? Child Neuropsychol. 24 , 734–762 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2017.1294665 Ritter, B. C., Nelle, M., Perrig, W., Steinlin, M. & Everts, R. Executive functions of children born very preterm—deficit or delay? Eur. J. Pediatr. 172 , 473–483 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-012-1906-2 Ritter, B. C., Perrig, W., Steinlin, M. & Everts, R. Cognitive and behavioral aspects of executive functions in children born very preterm. Child Neuropsychol. J. Norm. Abnorm. Dev. Child. Adolesc. 20 , 129–144 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2013.773968 Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Jankowski, J. J. & Van Rossem, R. Basic information processing abilities at 11 years account for deficits in IQ associated with preterm birth. Intelligence 39 , 198–209 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.003 Kurpershoek, T., Potharst-Sirag, E. S., Aarnoudse-Moens, C. S. H. & van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A. G. Minor neurological dysfunction in five year old very preterm children is associated with lower processing speed. Early Hum. Dev. 103 , 55–60 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2016.07.002 Mulder, H., Pitchford, N. J. & Marlow, N. Processing speed and working memory underlie academic attainment in very preterm children. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 95 , F267-272 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2009.167965 Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F. & Jankowski, J. J. Modeling a cascade of effects: The role of speed and executive functioning in preterm/full-term differences in academic achievement. Dev. Sci. 14 , 1161–1175 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01068.x Denervaud, S., Gentaz, E., Matusz, P. J. & Murray, M. M. Multisensory Gains in Simple Detection Predict Global Cognition in Schoolchildren. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1394 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58329-4 Birch, H. G. & Belmont, L. Auditory visual integration in normal and retarded readers. Bull. Orton Soc. 15 , 48–96 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02653757 Barutchu, A., Crewther, D. P. & Crewther, S. G. The race that precedes coactivation: development of multisensory facilitation in children. Dev. Sci. 12 , 464–473 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00782.x Barutchu, A. et al. The Relationship Between Multisensory Integration and IQ in Children. Dev. Psychol. 47 , 877–885 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021903 Barutchu, A., Fifer, J. M., Shivdasani, M. N., Crewther, S. G. & Paolini, A. G. The Interplay between Multisensory Associative Learning and IQ in Children. Child Dev. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13210 Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Wallace, I. F. & McCarton, C. Information Processing at 1 Year: Relation to Birth Status and Developmental Outcome During the First 5 Years. [Miscellaneous Article]. Dev. Psychol. 27 , 723–737 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.723 Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F. & Wallace, I. F. Infant Information Processing in Relation to Six-Year Cognitive Outcomes. Child Dev. 63 , 1126–1141 (1992). https://doi.org/10.2307/1131522 Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Futterweit, L. R. & Jankowski, J. J. Continuity in tactual–visual cross-modal transfer: Infancy to 11 years. Dev. Psychol. 34 , 435 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.435 Raab, D. H. Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci. (1962). Miller, J. Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognit. Psychol. 14 , 247–279 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90010-X Brandwein, A. B. et al. The development of audiovisual multisensory integration across childhood and early adolescence: a high-density electrical mapping study. Cereb. Cortex 21 , 1042–1055 (2011). 1042‑1055. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq170 Sperdin, H., Cappe, C., Foxe, J. & Murray, M. Early, low-level auditory-somatosensory multisensory interactions impact reaction time speed. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 3 , (2009). https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.07.002.2009 Sperdin, H. F., Cappe, C. & Murray, M. M. The behavioral relevance of multisensory neural response interactions. Front. Neurosci. 4 , 9 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.01.009.2010 Burr, D. & Gori, M. Multisensory integration develops late in humans. (2012). Streri, A. Cross-modal recognition of shape from hand to eyes in human newborns. Somatosens. Mot. Res. 20 , 13–18 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/0899022031000083799 Gibson, E. J. & Walker, A. S. Development of knowledge of visual-tactual affordances of substance. Child Dev. 55 , 453–460 (1984). Rose, S. A. Developmental changes in infants’ retention of visual stimuli. Child Dev. 52 , 227–233 (1981). Neil, P. A., Chee-Ruiter, C., Scheier, C., Lewkowicz, D. J. & Shimojo, S. Development of multisensory spatial integration and perception in humans. Dev. Sci. 9 , 454–464 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00512.x Neel, M. L. et al. Randomized controlled trial protocol to improve multisensory neural processing, language and motor outcomes in preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 19 , 81 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1455-1 Schneider, J. et al. Evolution of T1 Relaxation, ADC, and Fractional Anisotropy during Early Brain Maturation: A Serial Imaging Study on Preterm Infants. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 37 , 155–162 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4510 Largo, R. H. et al. Significance of prenatal, perinatal and postnatal factors in the development of AGA preterm infants at five to seven years. Dev. Med. Child Neurol. 31 , 440–456 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1989.tb04022.x Genoud, P. A. Indice de position socioéconomique: un calcul simplifié. Fribg. Univ. Fribg. Doc. Non Publ. (2011). Parham, L. D., Ecker, C. L., Kuhaneck, H. M., Henry, D. A. & Glennon, T. J. Sensory Processing Measure, (SPM-2). (2021). Wechsler, D. WISC-V: Technical and interpretive manual . (NCS Pearson, Incorporated, 2014). Peiffer, A. M., Mozolic, J. L., Hugenschmidt, C. E. & Laurienti, P. J. Age-related multisensory enhancement in a simple audiovisual detection task. NeuroReport 18 , 1077 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3281e72ae7 R Core Team: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. Available https://www.r-project.org/ (2020). Romei, V., Murray, M. M., Cappe, C. & Thut, G. The Contributions of Sensory Dominance and Attentional Bias to Cross-modal Enhancement of Visual Cortex Excitability. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 25 , 1122–1135 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00367 Murray, M. M. et al. Sensory dominance and multisensory integration as screening tools in aging. Sci. Rep. 8 , 8901 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27288-2 Barutchu, A., Crewther, S. G., Kiely, P., Murphy, M. J. & Crewther, D. P. When/b/ill with/g/ill becomes/d/ill: Evidence for a lexical effect in audiovisual speech perception. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 20 , 1–11 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601125623 Breeman, L. D., Jaekel, J., Baumann, N., Bartmann, P. & Wolke, D. Attention problems in very preterm children from childhood to adulthood: the Bavarian Longitudinal Study. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 57 , 132–140 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12456 de Kieviet, J. F., van Elburg, R. M., Lafeber, H. N. & Oosterlaan, J. Attention Problems of Very Preterm Children Compared with Age-Matched Term Controls at School-Age. J. Pediatr. 161 , 824-829.e1 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.05.010 Aarnoudse-Moens, C. S. H., Smidts, D. P., Oosterlaan, J., Duivenvoorden, H. J. & Weisglas-Kuperus, N. Executive Function in Very Preterm Children at Early School Age. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 37 , 981–993 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.06.052 Meredith, M. A. & Stein, B. E. Interactions among converging sensory inputs in the superior colliculus. Science 221 , 389–391 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6867718 Murray, M. M., Thelen, A., Ionta, S. & Wallace, M. T. Contributions of Intraindividual and Interindividual Differences to Multisensory Processes. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 31 , 360–376 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01246 Otto, T. U., Dassy, B. & Mamassian, P. Principles of Multisensory Behavior. J. Neurosci. 33 , 7463–7474 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4678-12.2013 Castellanos, F. X. et al. Varieties of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Related Intra-Individual Variability. Biol. Psychiatry 57 , 1416–1423 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.12.005 Murray, M. M., Foxe, J. J., Higgins, B. A., Javitt, D. C. & Schroeder, C. E. Visuo-spatial neural response interactions in early cortical processing during a simple reaction time task: a high-density electrical mapping study. Neuropsychologia 39 , 828–844 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00004-5 Wallace, M. T., Woynaroski, T. G. & Stevenson, R. A. Multisensory integration as a window into orderly and disrupted cognition and communication. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71 , 193–219 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051112 Harrar, V. et al. Multisensory Integration and Attention in Developmental Dyslexia. Curr. Biol. 24 , 531–535 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.029 Pulliam, G., Feldman, J. I. & Woynaroski, T. G. Audiovisual multisensory integration in individuals with reading and language impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 149 , 105130 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105130 Quak, M., London, R. E. & Talsma, D. A multisensory perspective of working memory. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9 , (2015). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00197 Aarnoudse-Moens, C. S. H., Oosterlaan, J., Duivenvoorden, H. J., van Goudoever, J. B. & Weisglas-Kuperus, N. Development of Preschool and Academic Skills in Children Born Very Preterm. J. Pediatr. 158 , 51–56 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.06.052 Luu, T. M., Vohr, B. R., Allan, W., Schneider, K. C. & Ment, L. R. Evidence for Catch-up in Cognition and Receptive Vocabulary Among Adolescents Born Very Preterm. Pediatrics 128 , 313–322 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2655 Vohr, B. Speech and language outcomes of very preterm infants. Semin. Fetal. Neonatal Med. 19 , 78–83 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2013.10.007 Franck, L. S., Waddington, C. & O’Brien, K. Family integrated care for preterm infants. Crit. Care Nurs. Clin. 32 , 149–165 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnc.2020.01.001 Altimier, L. & Phillips, R. The neonatal integrative developmental care model: advanced clinical applications of the seven core measures for neuroprotective family-centered developmental care. Newborn Infant Nurs. Rev. 16 , 230–244 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1053/j.nainr.2016.09.030 Jones, C. W., Moya, F. & Lynch, N. Unintended Consequences of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Environment: Integrative Review of Single-Family Room Unit Design. Adv. Neonatal Care Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Neonatal Nurses 23 , 151–159 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000001023 Schulz, S. E. & Stevenson, R. A. Differentiating between sensory sensitivity and sensory reactivity in relation to restricted interests and repetitive behaviours. Autism 24 , 121–134 (2020). Salles, J. et al. Deficits in voice and multisensory processing in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome. Neuropsychologia 85 , 137–147 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.015 Çizmecioğlu, F. M. et al. Neonatal Features of the Prader-Willi Syndrome; The Case for Making the Diagnosis During the First Week of Life. J. Clin. Res. Pediatr. Endocrinol. 10 , 264–273 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4274/jcrpe.0029 Feldman, J. I. et al. Audiovisual multisensory integration in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 95 , 220–234 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.09.020 Dionne-Dostie, E., Paquette, N., Lassonde, M. & Gallagher, A. Multisensory Integration and Child Neurodevelopment. Brain Sci. 5 , 32–57 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci5010032 Pierrat, V. et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 5 among children born preterm: EPIPAGE-2 cohort study. BMJ 373 , n741 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n741 Woodward, L. J. et al. Very preterm children show impairments across multiple neurodevelopmental domains by age 4 years. Arch. Dis. Child.-Fetal Neonatal Ed. 94 , 339–344 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2008.146282 Hackman, D. A. & Farah, M. J. Socioeconomic status and the developing brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13 , 65–73 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.003 Additional Declarations (Not answered) Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 06 Jul, 2024 Read the published version in npj Science of Learning → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: revise 19 Mar, 2024 Review # 2 received at journal 17 Mar, 2024 Review # 1 received at journal 10 Mar, 2024 Reviewer # 2 agreed at journal 23 Feb, 2024 Reviewer # 1 agreed at journal 15 Feb, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 03 Jan, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 02 Nov, 2023 Editor assigned by journal 02 Nov, 2023 First submitted to journal 02 Nov, 2023 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3542746","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":265005447,"identity":"9df94bdc-1d4b-41f7-9650-1593e3c20c78","order_by":0,"name":"Marion Décaillet","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1815-701X","institution":"Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marion","middleName":"","lastName":"Décaillet","suffix":""},{"id":265005448,"identity":"300b56df-1d1b-4790-a6c9-04d97397dc5d","order_by":1,"name":"Solange Denervaud","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Geneva University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Solange","middleName":"","lastName":"Denervaud","suffix":""},{"id":265005449,"identity":"0ad56ec9-6265-40a1-9fc4-5ecc24ef0358","order_by":2,"name":"Cléo Huguenin-Virchaux","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cléo","middleName":"","lastName":"Huguenin-Virchaux","suffix":""},{"id":265005450,"identity":"d52b3adb-47ef-4cad-b958-c1dda8700fed","order_by":3,"name":"Laureline Besuchet","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Laureline","middleName":"","lastName":"Besuchet","suffix":""},{"id":265005451,"identity":"709ceb4a-4d28-4401-bab3-f49e3aa8b848","order_by":4,"name":"Céline Fischer Fumeaux","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Céline","middleName":"Fischer","lastName":"Fumeaux","suffix":""},{"id":265005452,"identity":"1ab636f4-c49f-4e8c-b52e-1f999ae0e908","order_by":5,"name":"Micah Murray","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7821-117X","institution":"Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Micah","middleName":"","lastName":"Murray","suffix":""},{"id":265005453,"identity":"b73a7cd6-1d4b-4061-8adf-0e5adc113fa8","order_by":6,"name":"Juliane Schneider","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6849-6178","institution":"Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Juliane","middleName":"","lastName":"Schneider","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-11-02 09:52:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3542746/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3542746/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00257-3","type":"published","date":"2024-07-06T04:00:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49237468,"identity":"b37c04ac-1f1d-4ad4-8004-99de1e23d8ca","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-05 18:01:08","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":178312,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(\u003cstrong\u003eA\u003c/strong\u003e) Mean reaction times (s.e.m. indicated) for each stimulus condition separated by group. (\u003cstrong\u003eB\u003c/strong\u003e) Mean interquartile range (s.e.m. indicated) for each stimulus condition separated by group. \u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. Aud. = auditory, vis. = visual and mult. = multisensory, * = p\u0026lt;.001.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3542746/v1/698fe7426bde261263e91db0.png"},{"id":49237467,"identity":"498ae316-8f89-4eb5-bc08-939a24040a48","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-05 18:01:08","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":66954,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eVery preterm and full-term children’s cumulative probability distributions for the auditory, visual, simultaneous (i.e., audio-visual) stimuli and for the values predicted by the race model.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3542746/v1/9748b6f8bf008a770885f221.png"},{"id":59791076,"identity":"c91eeb4f-1ac6-4782-9250-e3b05fe2c33a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-07 07:06:04","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1262453,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3542746/v1/b2eeb8cb-1342-4dd9-bb30-fb7ef70fd824.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"(Not answered)","formattedTitle":"The Impact of Premature Birth on Multisensory Processes in Very Preterm Schoolchildren","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eHumans live in a multisensory environment, with information available to the different senses that need to be combined or segregated appropriately to generate coherent perceptions and behavior. Examples of the perceptual and behavioral benefits of multisensory processes extend from stimulus detection \u003csup\u003e1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/sup\u003e to speech perception \u003csup\u003e5,6\u003c/sup\u003e, food appreciation \u003csup\u003e7,8\u003c/sup\u003e, as well as body consciousness \u003csup\u003e9,10\u003c/sup\u003e. Multisensory processes can also enhance decision-making and different types of learning \u003csup\u003e11,12\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn adults, multisensory processes have been well investigated \u003csup\u003e13\u0026ndash;15\u003c/sup\u003e. By contrast, substantially less is known regarding the developmental trajectory of multisensory processes and how early life experience influences this trajectory. This is precisely the case of prematurity, for which long-term multisensory development has only been slightly investigated, even though it concerns roughly 10% of births worldwide, 10% of those being very preterm births (i.e., births occurring before 32 gestational weeks) \u003csup\u003e16,17\u003c/sup\u003e. Very preterm births may include adverse neurodevelopmental consequences, such as sensory processing and integration \u003csup\u003e18\u0026ndash;20\u003c/sup\u003e. These difficulties are present during early development from the first months through toddlerhood \u003csup\u003e18,19\u003c/sup\u003e. Here, we investigated the consequences of very preterm birth on sensory processing and integration that persist through school age.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePremature infants have immature nervous systems and experience altered sensory environments that could impact their functional development. During their hospitalization, infants are exposed to a completely different ex-utero context than their full-term peers. In the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), very preterm infants are surrounded by machines and thus are more exposed to mid- and high-frequency sounds and brighter, unnatural lighting \u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e. This atypical environment and the necessary medical procedures could lead to various situations of dystimulation (i.e., inappropriate stimulations) \u003csup\u003e22\u0026ndash;24\u003c/sup\u003e. Indeed, the stimuli experienced by premature neonates are oftentimes less targeted for infants\u0026rsquo; neurodevelopment, instead focusing on their medical wellbeing. One consequence may therefore be less infant-directed and thus more incongruous stimuli \u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e, which may in turn not be accurately integrated by the neonate and that could lead to future sensory difficulties such as hypo- and hyper- sensitivity \u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e. In support, at discharge, premature infants present diminished brain responses to (multi)sensory stimuli \u003csup\u003e19,27,28\u003c/sup\u003e. As they grow up, young preterm children aged 2\u0026ndash;5 years old continue to show sensory alterations across all sensory modalities (for a review, see Br\u0026ouml;ring et al. \u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e). However, there is a gap in the literature, as only a few studies have been conducted concerning long-term sensory consequences at school age. Through a sensory questionnaire, Wickremasinghe et al. found that nine-year-old very preterm children have atypical response patterns, including both hypo-responsivity and hyper-responsivity in various senses \u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e. Br\u0026ouml;ring et al. conducted a case-controlled study and found that very preterm schoolchildren aged\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;9.2 years present hyposensitivity and hypersensitivity, more specifically, in tactile perception, kinesthesia and graphesthesia \u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, using a set-shifting task they also derived a measure of cross-modal interactions and observed no differences in accuracy or reaction times between preterm and full-term children. However, their task might assess cross-modal attention processes with constant updating of the motor response, rather than strictly multisensory integration \u003csup\u003e31\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, while this fundamental work sheds light on hyper- or hypo-sensory perception without impacting cross-modal interactions, no research has been conducted without a task that required matching different sensory information, focusing then only on high-level processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is currently known is that prematurely born schoolchildren are more likely to show long-term neurodevelopmental cognitive impairments and neuropsychiatric disorders \u003csup\u003e32\u0026ndash;35\u003c/sup\u003e. At school age, 8-year-old very preterm children show poorer executive function skills even though some of them caught up many of their delays by the age of 12 \u003csup\u003e36\u0026ndash;39\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, their processing speed and working memory notably predict their neurological impairments and their school difficulties \u003csup\u003e40,41\u003c/sup\u003e. Indeed, processing speed mediates impairments in executive functions, which in turn play a role in school readiness \u003csup\u003e42\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral works have drawn links between multisensory integration and some behaviours and cognitive abilities. First, atypical multisensory processes in early infancy have been associated with altered sensory profiles at 12 months of age and internalizing tendencies at 24 months of age \u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e. Second, in healthy schoolchildren, low-level multisensory abilities predict higher-level cognition such as working memory and fluid intelligence \u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e. Auditory-visual integration is also associated with reading abilities at a young age (between 5\u0026ndash;8 years), whereas it is not the case afterward, underscoring how auditory-visual integration is important for learning to how to read \u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, several correlations between multisensory integration and IQ have been reported. In a large study with 5 to 12-year-old schoolchildren, Birch \u0026amp; Belmont observed a positive association between IQ and multisensory integration that decreased with age \u003csup\u003e44\u003c/sup\u003e. More recently, Barutchu and colleagues have found that multisensory facilitation was not associated with IQ or reading abilities between 6 and 11 years of age in a quiet environment \u003csup\u003e45\u0026ndash;47\u003c/sup\u003e. Nevertheless, when multisensory facilitation exceeded probability summation in noise, it was correlated with a higher IQ \u003csup\u003e46\u003c/sup\u003e. Rose et al. examined potential associations between sensory processing abilities at the ages of 7 months and 1 year on IQ scores throughout childhood in full-term and preterm children \u003csup\u003e48\u0026ndash;50\u003c/sup\u003e. They found that this relationship between sensory processing and cognitive outcome is present during the entire childhood until 11 years of age, but that it weakened thereafter. To our knowledge, these are the only studies that investigated these associations in preterm children. If indeed these relationships between multisensory processes and cognitive abilities are also valid with very preterm schoolchildren, it would likely help to identify children most at-risk. As altered multisensory processes may be a precursor or a predictor of these cognitive impairments, support could be adapted accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn schoolchildren, as well as adults, a simple detection task provides an efficient means of quantitatively assessing multisensory processes. This task typically involves a button-press response to the presentation of each stimulus in a randomized sequence of intermixed unisensory (i.e., auditory or visual) and multisensory (i.e., the simultaneous presentation of both auditory and visual stimuli) events, whose timing is unpredictable. From such a task, one can compare accuracy and reaction times to multisensory stimuli versus each unisensory condition to ascertain if performance is more accurate and/or faster under multisensory conditions; a phenomenon often referred to as the redundant signals effect (e.g., \u003csup\u003e51\u003c/sup\u003e ). It can in turn be queried whether multisensory facilitation as measured via the redundant signals effect is explainable by a race model or instead by a co-activation model \u003csup\u003e51,52\u003c/sup\u003e as well as by the age when these processes become mature \u003csup\u003e45,53\u003c/sup\u003e. When data are explainable by the race model, information from the different senses can independently initiate the motor response, and probability summation can account for any facilitation of behavior. By contrast, co-activation is invoked when facilitation of behavior exceeds probability summation, and by extension information from the different senses must interact prior to initiating the motor response \u003csup\u003e52\u003c/sup\u003e. Such notwithstanding, neural response interactions have been observed both when the race model is violated and satisfied \u003csup\u003e54,55\u003c/sup\u003e. Studies with healthy children have yielded mixed results, showing that multisensory integration and facilitation development is variable and not completely mature during childhood \u003csup\u003e56\u003c/sup\u003e. During the first 6 months of life, multisensory matching \u003csup\u003e57\u003c/sup\u003e and the transfer of information from one sensory modality to another start to become mature \u003csup\u003e58,59\u003c/sup\u003e. Multisensory facilitation develops through the first months, indeed young infants show multisensory facilitation from at least one month, but only infants aged 8 months and older started to exhibit some evidence for co-activation under certain conditions \u003csup\u003e60\u003c/sup\u003e. During childhood, Barutchu et al. have not observed a clear developmental trajectory of multisensory integration \u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e. Whereas there was no clear evidence of co-activation at 6 and 10 years, children aged 7\u0026ndash;9 years presented evidence of violation of the race model. Therefore, multisensory facilitation seems to be still immature and fluctuating even in late childhood. Similarly, Brandwein et al. have also found that even if a multisensory facilitation effect appeared at a young age, its processes became mature around adolescence \u003csup\u003e53\u003c/sup\u003e. More specifically, the extent of co-activation, measured as the magnitude as well as number of children exhibiting such, increased with age. One postulation is that this facilitation process is not automatic and effortless for children, but rather may rely on the maturation of high-level cognitive and top-down processes \u003csup\u003e45\u003c/sup\u003e. To our knowledge, however, none of these prior studies specifically reported or accounted for the gestational age at birth of their participants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, in view of previous research and the lack of long-term information, the primary aim of the current study was to characterize the multisensory processing profile of very preterm children at school age. Using a simple detection task without the need for stimulus associations, low-level stimulus processing could be investigated. Our secondary aim followed from evidence that multisensory gains in simple detection (i.e., the percentage difference in mean reaction time between the multisensory and the faster unisensory stimulus) can predict global cognition in schoolchildren \u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, we assessed correlations between multisensory gains observed in very preterm schoolchildren and neuropsychological test scores. Except for one ongoing study by Neel et al. investigating the benefits of a multisensory intervention in the neonatal intensive care units, there is no proven sensory support intervention \u003csup\u003e61\u003c/sup\u003e. Accurately understanding the specificity of sensory difficulties in very preterm children would enable us to tailor support and to create appropriate sensory rehabilitation for neonates and children at an early age.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"MATERIALS AND METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e All parents provided their written, informed consent for their child to participate. The project was approved by the state ethics committee (CER-VD, protocol no. 2019\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;01056) and conforms to principles outlaid in the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eVery preterm Children\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis is an observational study of fifty-one very preterm (VPT) children previously hospitalized in a level III NICU who were recruited in the main project entitled \u003cem\u003eLong-term impact of early nutritional and pain management in very preterm infants on brain health and function\u003c/em\u003e at their birth \u003csup\u003e62\u003c/sup\u003e. From July 2020 to October 2021, on their last follow-up appointment at eight years old, 41 children participated (i.e., ten children did not take part in the study because of death (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), lost contact at a previous follow-up visit (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), complex social situation (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2), unreachable parents (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2) or refusal to participate (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2)). Finally, due to incomplete testing, the final sample included twenty-eight very preterm children (M \u003csub\u003egestational age\u003c/sub\u003e = 27 weeks, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.80), aged 8\u0026ndash;10 years (M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 8.80, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.51, 15 girls).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFull-term Children\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a reference group, data from twenty-three full-term (FT) children aged 6\u0026ndash;11 (M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 9.00, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.65, 11 girls) were selected from an existing database based on age (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(25.4)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.584) and gender (ꭓ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.515, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.48). They participated in a parallel study about neurodevelopment and schooling experience and underwent the same simple detection task detailed below. Their non-prematurity was assessed through a questionnaire, but no precise gestational age (GA) was collected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTasks and Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe testing of the VPT children took place during the follow-up appointment at the Development Unit of the Lausanne University Hospital following their premature birth. They were tested individually in a quiet room. FT children were tested individually either in a quiet room at Lausanne University Hospital or at their school. The task was presented and controlled using the E-Prime 2.0 Software (Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA) displayed on a PC laptop.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSimple Detection Task\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisual (V), auditory (A) or audiovisual (AV) stimuli were presented to children. The visual stimuli were composed of a white cloud, or a white star presented in the middle of a black background. The auditory stimuli were either of two types of tones (44100 Hz digitization; 16 bits stereo) that varied in terms of their spectral composition: a whistle ranging from 18700 Hz to 19600 Hz and a yawn ranging from 20Hz to 21000Hz. The audio-visual stimuli were the synchronous presentation of the visual and auditory stimuli. Each type of stimulus was randomly presented 20 times. Therefore, the children completed 60 trials. Stimulus duration was 500ms and during the pseudo-randomized inter-stimulus interval (i.e., 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800 and 1900ms), a small white fixation dot was presented. Children were asked to press the keyboard spacebar as fast as possible each time they saw or heard something. We recorded both accuracy and reaction time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocioeconomic status (SES)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the differences between experimental versus clinical contexts, SES was not assessed with the same questionnaire for the VPT and FT groups. SES of the VPT group was calculated with the Largo score, with values ranging from 1 to 6 \u003csup\u003e63\u003c/sup\u003e. Lower scores correspond to higher education degrees (i.e., university education), and higher scores correspond to shorter formal education (i.e., elementary school, occupations without apprenticeship or professional designation). We summed and averaged the scores of both parents, converted them to a percentage and then subtracted them from 100% to allow for comparison with SES scores from the FT group. SES of the FT group was assessed according to both parents\u0026rsquo; educational level and current job, both scoring from 1 to 4 (1 representing lower level) \u003csup\u003e64\u003c/sup\u003e. We also summed and averaged scores across both parents and then converted them to a percentage to allow for comparison between groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClinical Batteries\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring their follow-up appointment, several clinical batteries and questionnaires were also completed by VPT children or their parents. Clinical batteries were not completed by the FT children.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSensory Processing Measure (SPM)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis instrument consists of a questionnaire completed by the parents and that assesses diverse sensory processing, praxis, and social participation \u003csup\u003e65\u003c/sup\u003e. Parents rated each of the 75 statements about their child's behaviour by whether it had occurred never/sometimes/often/always in the past month. In the present study, the scales \u003cem\u003eVision\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAudition\u003c/em\u003e, as well as the total score were considered.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis tool evaluates the intellectual ability of children \u003csup\u003e66\u003c/sup\u003e. In this study, we considered the total IQ score, the \u003cem\u003eWorking Memory Index\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eProcessing Speed Index\u003c/em\u003e. The working memory index is measured using two subtests, the \u003cem\u003ePicture Span\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., remembrance of a sequence of pictures in the correct order and the selection of these images from a larger picture array) and the \u003cem\u003eDigit Span\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., the recall of a sequence of numbers in the original, reverse, and ascending order). Processing speed is composed of the subtest \u003cem\u003eCode\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., transcription of a digit-symbol code using a specific key) and the subtest \u003cem\u003eSymbol Search\u003c/em\u003e (i.e., detection of a target within a line of symbols).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor both accuracy and reaction time (RT) analyses from the simple detection task, only responses given in a valid reaction time (RTs ranging between 150ms and 2000ms, and RT\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e for an individual child collapsed across all conditions, i.e., across all participants, ~\u0026thinsp;6.93% of the trials were discarded) were included \u003csup\u003e43,67\u003c/sup\u003e. Accuracy was computed as the percentage of detected stimuli. In addition, we computed the individual Interquartile Range (IQR) of the RTs distribution for each condition. Analyses were performed using Jamovi (Version 0.9) Computer Software and R.3.6.3 \u003csup\u003e68\u003c/sup\u003e. The statistical significance level was set at \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, we assessed and compared the frequency of sensory dominance (i.e. the unisensory modality with faster RTs) between VPT and FT children with a Chi-squared test. Then, we compared the unisensory and multisensory accuracy, RT, and IQRs as well as the multisensory gain between VPT and FT children. As some accuracy, reaction time and IQR distributions were not normally distributed in both groups and because the homogeneity of variance was violated (Levene\u0026rsquo;s Test p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 for all stimulus conditions), we performed nonparametric tests to investigate the impact of Stimulus Condition (i.e., Friedman Test) and of Group (i.e., Kruskal Wallis Test) on the accuracy, mean RTs, and IQRs. In addition, a first multisensory gain was calculated as the relative difference between the mean reaction time to multisensory and the faster unisensory condition (i.e., [(Mean RT\u003csub\u003efastest unisensory condition\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026ndash; RT\u003csub\u003emultisensory condition\u003c/sub\u003e)/RT\u003csub\u003efastest unisensory condition\u003c/sub\u003e] * 100). A second multisensory gain was computed in the same way but based on IQRs instead of RTs. We performed a t-test on these two multisensory gains to compare both groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, to investigate the underlying multisensory processes and to compare the presence of the \u0026lsquo;redundant signal effect\u0026rsquo; (RSE), we computed the Race Model inequality \u003csup\u003e52\u003c/sup\u003e in both groups. Inaccurate trials where children failed to respond in the given RT period were removed from the analyses. Each subject\u0026rsquo;s RT for each condition was treated individually. The cumulative probability (CP) distributions were calculated for each condition after having been normalized in terms of the percentile of the range of reaction times across all stimulus conditions (i.e., bin widths of 5% were used in the current study). Then group-averaged cumulative probability values were calculated for each modality. The predicted values by the model were calculated as [(CP\u003csub\u003eauditive\u003c/sub\u003e+CP\u003csub\u003evisual\u003c/sub\u003e)-(CP\u003csub\u003eauditive\u003c/sub\u003e*CP\u003csub\u003evisual\u003c/sub\u003e)] and compared to the observed audio-visual cumulative probability for each bin. For each percentile where the predicted values were exceeded by the observed simultaneous values (i.e., audio-visual stimuli), the race model was violated, and the co-activation hypothesis was favoured. Paired t-tests (one-tailed) were performed to test the reliability of this violation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, to explore if the multisensory gain in very preterm children was related to the neuropsychological measures, partial correlations were performed between clinical and cognitive measures, and the multisensory gain with SES and gestational age as covariables. As \u003cem\u003eVision\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eAudition\u003c/em\u003e scales were not normally distributed partial Spearman correlations were computed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDemographics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile sex and age were not different between VPT and FT children, FT children had a significantly higher socio-economic status. VPT children scored in the normal range for processing speed and working memory index on the WISC. In addition, their IQ evaluated with the WISC was also in the norm (for details, see \u003cem\u003eTable 1\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 1\u003c/em\u003e. Demographic data. Mean \u0026plusmn; SD are indicated in parentheses, except for the percentage of girls. Regarding the SES, note that data from 5 individuals were missing for the FT group and from 3 individuals for the VPT group. For the cognitive measures of the WISC, due to the absence of similar measures in the FT group, norms were used.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.50474383301708%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVPT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.50474383301708%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN (% girls)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e28 (53.57%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e23 (43.48)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.48\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.50474383301708%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAge in yrs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8.80 (0.51)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9.00 (1.65)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.584\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.50474383301708%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGA in weeks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e27 (2.80)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.50474383301708%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e57.2 (24.8)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e78.2 (18.7)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.004\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.50474383301708%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWISC- Total (IQ)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e105 (13.3)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e100 (15)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.50474383301708%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWISC \u0026ndash; Processing speed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e99.4 (15.8)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e100 (15)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"42.50474383301708%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWISC \u0026ndash; Working Memory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e102 (17.2)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e100 (15)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.165085388994306%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuditory and visual acuity of the VPT children\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring the neonatal period, auditory evoked potentials were classified as normal for all VPT infants. And by the age of 8, none of them had any hearing impairment. Regarding vision, two neonates suffered from grade I or II retinopathy of prematurity. One was treated with laser and the second one normalized without treatment. Both had no persistent sequalae. At 8 years old, 10 children were wearing corrective glasses for various pathologies, including 9 with complete correction and 1 without binocular vision. Moreover, one VPT child suffered from strabismus and was undergoing neuro-visual rehabilitation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSimple Detection Task\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSensory Dominance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSensory dominance, operationally defined here as the modality resulting in faster unisensory RTs in each participant (see also\u0026nbsp;Romei et al., 2013\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;Murray et al., 2018\u0026nbsp;for similar approaches), was similar between VPT and FT children (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e=0.49). There was a significantly greater proportion of visual dominance compared to auditory dominance in both FT children (78% vs. 22%, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e=.011) and VPT children (86% vs. 14%, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAccuracy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Friedman test on mean Accuracy showed a main effect of Stimulus Condition, (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(2)=7.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e=.0.03), which was due to lower accuracy for auditory (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=91.6%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=8.32) than for multisensory (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=94.7%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=7.92) stimuli (i.e., Dubin-Conover pairwise comparison: \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e=.007). But visual (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=92.1%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=11.1) presented an intermediate accuracy which was not significatively different from auditory and multisensory conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Kruskall-Wallis test showed that the general accuracy of FT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=92.3%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=8.45) was similar to the accuracy of VPT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=93.2%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=6.69), (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(2)=0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e=0.94), as well as for each condition separately (see Table 2). The inclusion of SES as a covariate did not change this pattern of results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 2\u003c/em\u003e. Accuracy and standard deviation for each modality on the simple detection task and its comparison between VPT and FT groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.22222222222222%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStimulus Condition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.598290598290598%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVPT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.598290598290598%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChi-square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.965811965811966%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.384615384615385%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.22222222222222%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVisual\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.598290598290598%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91.6% (12.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.598290598290598%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.7% (9.38)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.965811965811966%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.953\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.384615384615385%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.83e-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.22222222222222%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuditory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.598290598290598%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92.5% (8.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.598290598290598%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90.4% (8.61)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.965811965811966%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.384615384615385%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"22.22222222222222%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMultisensory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.598290598290598%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.4%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(7.06)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.598290598290598%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93.8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(8.94)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.23076923076923%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.965811965811966%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.384615384615385%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReaction Times\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Friedman test on mean RTs showed a main effect of Stimulus Condition, (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(2)=74.9, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001), which was due to generally faster RTs for multisensory (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=415ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=92.8) than for either visual (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=457ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=103) or auditory (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=510ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=138) stimuli (all Durbin-Conover pairwise comparisons between each stimulus condition \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Kruskall-Wallis test showed a main effect of Group; FT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=366ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=37.9) being generally faster than VPT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=538ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=79.1), \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)=35.3, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001, \u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.71 (Fig. 1A). This was the case for each stimulus condition (i.e., visual: \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eFT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=370ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=38.2 vs \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eVPT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=529ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=80.7, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)=33.8, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001, \u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.68; auditory: \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eFT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=395ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=47.8 vs \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eVPT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=605ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=113, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)=34.7, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001, \u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.69; and multisensory: \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eFT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=335ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=31.6 vs \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eVPT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=481ms, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=79.1, \u0026nbsp;\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)=35.3, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001, \u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.71). This pattern of results remained the same when adding the SES as a covariate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eVariability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Friedman test on IQRs showed a main effect of Stimulus Condition, (\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(2)=56.7, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001), which was due to smaller IQR for multisensory (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=76.8, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=76.8) than for either visual (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=97.9, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=58.4) or for auditory (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=140, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=82.7) stimuli; the latter of which also significantly differed from each other (all Durbin-Conover pairwise comparisons between each stimulus condition \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Kruskall-Wallis test showed a main effect of Group; FT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=60.7 \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=11.3) having generally smaller IQR than VPT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=141, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=60.8), \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)=33.6, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001, \u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.67 (Fig. 1B). This was the case for each stimulus condition (i.e., visual: \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eFT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=55.8, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=12.3 vs \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eVPT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=133, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=58.7, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)=25.5, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001, \u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.51; auditory: \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eFT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=83.4, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=30.6 vs \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eVPT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=186, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=83.5, \u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)=21.4, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001, \u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.43; and multisensory: \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eFT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=43.0, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=9.78 vs \u003cem\u003eM\u003csub\u003eVPT\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e=105, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=95.2, \u0026nbsp;\u0026chi;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)=21.8, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;.001, \u0026epsilon;\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.44).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMultisensory Gain\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReaction Times\u003c/strong\u003e. The percentage multisensory gain on RT was similar in FT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=9.08%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=2.29) and in VPT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=7.52%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=7.87), (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(32.4)=1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e= .33; Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d=0.27).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariability\u003c/strong\u003e.\u0026nbsp;The percentage multisensory gain on IQR was similar in FT (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=16.6%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=9.61) and in VPT children (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e=9.61%, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e=48.7), (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(38.6)=0.69, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e= .50; Cohen\u0026rsquo;s d=0.19).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRace Model Inequality\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere was slight violation of the Race Model inequality in VPT children for the 0, 10, 15, 25, 30, and 35 quantiles (Fig. 2). However, in no case was the cumulative probability for the multisensory condition significantly higher than the cumulative probability for the values predicted by the race model (for details, see \u003cem\u003eTable 3\u003c/em\u003e). By contrast, the race model was significantly violated in FT children for the 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 40 quantiles. The cumulative probability for the multisensory condition was significantly higher than the cumulative probability for the values predicted by the race model for these eight quantiles (for details, see \u003cem\u003eTable 3\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTable 3.\u003c/em\u003e The average cumulative probability (and standard deviation) for the simultaneous condition with that predicted by the race model as well as the corresponding paired t-test and p-values for all quantiles in VPT children (left) and FT children (right).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.33868378812199%\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVPT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"48.47512038523274%\" colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFT\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25.36115569823435%\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative Probability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"30.337078651685392%\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCumulative Probability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuantile (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimultaneous\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredicted\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSimultaneous\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredicted\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03(0.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03(0.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01(0.01)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002(0.01)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.004**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06(0.09)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07(0.06)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03(0.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.003(0.01)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.15(0.20)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14(0.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09(0.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03(0.06)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22(0.24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.21(0.20)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22(0.16)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09(0.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31(0.27)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31(0.27)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38(0.22)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19(0.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.44(0.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43(0.29)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.53(0.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33(0.23)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56(0.28)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56(0.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65(0.20)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.50(0.24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.57(0.28)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64(0.30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.73(0.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65(0.22)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001***\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.74(0.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75(0.18)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.76(0.19)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.81(0.15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84(0.12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.82(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.83(0.18)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86(0.12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89(0.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87(0.15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88(0.10)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92(0.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.85(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.9(.015)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90(0.10)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94(0.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.87(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92(0.14)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.91(0.10)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95(0.04)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.87\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93(0.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92(0.09)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96(0.04)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.88(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93(0.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93(0.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98(0.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94(0.12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.93(0.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98(0.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94(0.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94(0.08)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98(0.03)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95(0.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94(0.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.98(0.02)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95(0.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95(0.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99(0.02)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.89(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.95(0.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.186195826645266%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"13.001605136436597%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96(0.07)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"12.359550561797754%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.99(0.02)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.828250401284109%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.149277688603531%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.088282504012842%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90(0.17)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"15.248796147672552%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.96(0.10)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.544141252006421%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.593900481540931%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRelationships between multisensory gains and neuropsychological scores in VPT\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVPT children scored in the normal range on all selected scales of the SPM questionnaire and WISC-V tests (for details, see \u003cem\u003eTable 4\u003c/em\u003e). By controlling for gestational age and SES, partial Spearman correlations were carried out. The multisensory gain was not significantly correlated with any of the clinical or cognitive measures (for details, see \u003cem\u003eTable 5\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTable 4.\u003c/em\u003e Neuropsychological tests for very preterm children. \u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. SPM = Sensory Processing Measure, WISC = Wechsler Intelligence Scale Children, Mean = T-scores\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"595\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNorms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSPM \u0026ndash; Vision\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.9 (6.80)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSPM \u0026ndash; Audition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.8 (8.85)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSPM \u0026ndash; Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.3 (7.11)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWISC \u0026ndash; Processing Speed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99.4 (15.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100 (15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWISC \u0026ndash; Working Memory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102 (17.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100 (15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWISC - Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105 (13.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100 (15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"25%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTable 5\u003c/em\u003e. Partial correlations between the multisensory gain and clinical and cognitive measures, controlling for SES and gestational age.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMultisensory Gain\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSPM \u0026ndash; Vision\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSPM \u0026ndash; Audition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSPM \u0026ndash; Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWISC \u0026ndash; Working Memory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWISC \u0026ndash; Processing Speed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWISC \u0026ndash; IQ Total\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigit Span\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"47.33009708737864%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDigit Span - Ascending\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.21359223300971%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"26.45631067961165%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite their importance in daily life and their contributions to cognitive functions, how multisensory processes develop has been under-investigated, especially in children more at risk for neurodevelopmental and neuropsychiatric disorders, such as VPT children. Here, we provide some of the first data on low-level multisensory processes in VPT children at school age. While neuropsychological assessments were in the normal range, RTs at the simple detection task were generally both slower and more variable in VPT schoolchildren. VPT children did exhibit multisensory facilitation like their FT peers. However, for VPT children, this facilitation was fully explained by mechanisms based on probability summation. By contrast, multisensory facilitation in FT children exceeded predictions based on probability summation and instead entailed integrative processes (see also Barutchu et al., for similar findings in FT children \u003csup\u003e71\u003c/sup\u003e). These results suggest that both sensory as well as multisensory processes are altered in a long-lasting way by early-life events.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, our findings reveal that VPT children showed generally slower RT to unisensory and multisensory stimulus conditions. This was the case even though both FT and VPT children exhibited similar, near-ceiling accuracy rates for all stimulus conditions, suggesting that this difference was not the result of a speed-accuracy trade-off or general inattentiveness (see \u003csup\u003e72\u003c/sup\u003e for discussion). Likewise, IQ scores from VPT children were within the normal range, implying that the observed slowing was not the result of a general difference in global cognition, in particular the processing speed. It thus appears that their sensory detection capacity (i.e., accuracy) is not impaired, but it takes them longer to respond to stimulation. Accuracy and RT in the FT children here are highly concordant with values reported by prior works \u003csup\u003e53,71\u003c/sup\u003e. The slowing of RTs in VPT children is similar to what was observed in 6-year-old VPT by de Kieviet et al. in visual attention task \u003csup\u003e73\u003c/sup\u003e (see also Aarnoudse-Moens et al. about processing speed \u003csup\u003e74\u003c/sup\u003e). Our results thus indicate that this slowing persists into later childhood. In contrast, when it concerns high-level detection (i.e., sensory matching task), VPT children have not exhibited slower RT \u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e. Therefore, while they present impaired low-level multisensory detection mechanisms (i.e., simple detection task), VPT children might rely on other \u0026ndash; perhaps compensatory - mechanisms when completing higher-level cognitive tasks. Whether and how such invocation of compensatory strategies and mechanisms contribute to the observed higher risk for learning differences and poorer scholastic achievement in VPT individuals remains to be fully characterised, particularly if such derive, even partially, from the persistent general slowing we observed here.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, despite more variable simple RT across all sensory modalities, VPT children nonetheless exhibited percentage gains equivalent to those of their FT peers both when mean RT and their IQR were quantified. This pattern of results runs somewhat counter to what might otherwise be predicted from a strict application of the so-called principle of inverse effectiveness \u003csup\u003e75\u003c/sup\u003e. That is, it could be contended that the slower and more variable RT observed in VPT children are indicative of reduced stimulus effectiveness (compared to FT children). As such, it would follow that larger percentage gains would be expected in the VPT children. However, it is also the case that the RT distributions in response to unisensory conditions in the VPT children were less overlapping. Prior work has shown that larger gains are observed when these distributions are more superimposed \u003csup\u003e76\u003c/sup\u003e (see also Otto et al.\u003csup\u003e77\u003c/sup\u003e). Such notwithstanding, we consider it particularly noteworthy that performance variability was significantly decreased (i.e., became less variable) under multisensory stimulus conditions in both full-term and preterm schoolchildren alike and despite general differences in RT speed. Multisensory stimulus contexts may thus provide an access point for remediating situations where highly variable behaviour may be a contributor to poorer performance and cognition, as has been reported, for example, in children with ADHD \u003csup\u003e78\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, while multisensory gains in FT children necessitated integrative processes, this was not the case here for our group of VPT children. We would hasten to note that even though there was no violation of probability summation in VPT children, this does not necessarily exclude the presence of nonlinear neuronal response interactions \u003csup\u003e54,79\u003c/sup\u003e. Such notwithstanding, the presence of multisensory gains in VPT children that are moreover fully explained by probability summation suggests different underlying neural processes subserving multisensory processes across the two groups of children. Therefore, further investigations are needed to comprehensively understand those mechanisms using brain mapping and/or imaging tools. As these multisensory and integrative processes are thought to mature during late childhood in FT children \u003csup\u003e53,71\u003c/sup\u003e, an additional question arises as to whether differences we observe in VPT reflect a delay or a persistent deficit. Accordingly, future studies should include adolescents and adults to investigate the complete developmental trajectory of multisensory processes in preterm-born individuals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultisensory integration has been found to have a cascading effect on higher-order cognitive skills (e.g., Denervaud et al., \u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e; for a review see Wallace et al., \u003csup\u003e80\u003c/sup\u003e). Therefore, this atypical sensory profile could not only affect performance in laboratory settings, but also daily life activities, including schooling and academic performance. At school, audition and vision are often paired and contribute to various learning processes, in particular regarding language and reading. Indeed, poorer readers exhibit impaired audiovisual integration \u003csup\u003e44,81,82\u003c/sup\u003e. In addition, multisensory integration also interacts with memory functions \u003csup\u003e11,83\u003c/sup\u003e. One possibility is that altered multisensory processes in VPT schoolchildren could explain in part their academic difficulties in many domains \u003csup\u003e84\u0026ndash;86\u003c/sup\u003e. It is therefore particularly important to develop sensory intervention and rehabilitation strategies to enhance multisensory integration as early as possible. Several protective measures are already being implemented to reduce the impact of the hospitalization in the NICU and related atypical sensory stimulation. Indeed, since the last 20 years, implementation of the developmental care has spread out and developed, by encompassing the broader concept of family integrated care \u003csup\u003e87\u003c/sup\u003e. This care approach regroups different neuroprotective measures such as skin-to-skin contact, aiming at minimizing stress and pain, and partnering with families to create the best healing environment as possible \u003csup\u003e88\u003c/sup\u003e according to the recommendations of the European Foundation for the Care of Newborn Infants (EFCNI) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Another resource developed is the single-family room, which allows for lower noise levels, and provides better light control, often with more natural light. But these rooms also come with other disadvantages and cannot be adapted to all centers \u003csup\u003e89\u003c/sup\u003e. In 2011\u0026ndash;2012, at the time of their neonatal hospitalization, the VPT children of our cohort had beneficiated from some of these strategies, but the protective measures have since improved and therefore represent a promising way of preventive actions of long-term multisensory impairments that need to be consolidated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, contrarily to FT children where the multisensory gain predicted measures of global cognition \u003csup\u003e43\u003c/sup\u003e, in VPT children cognitive and clinical sensory measures did not correlate with percentages of multisensory gain. This result combined with the fact that they only showed little high-level cognitive deficit could indicate the use of compensatory mechanisms, akin to what has been invoked in other works that did not observe performance differences between VPT and FT children. Concerning the Sensory Processing Measure, this questionnaire might assess the sensory reactivity (i.e., behavioural response to a sensory stimulus), whereas the simple detection task relies more on the sensory sensitivity (i.e., perception of the sensory stimulus). These two concepts might be independent of each other \u003csup\u003e90\u003c/sup\u003e. It is likewise possible that the failure to observe significant correlations here may be due (at least in part) to the rather homogenous and high scores on the neuropsychological tests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is noteworthy that our findings are in line with atypical patterns of multisensory processes found among various neurodevelopmental disorders. Indeed, while there is a lack of studies regarding prematurity, multisensory integration has been well-examined in diverse neurodevelopmental disorders. Using the same type of simple detection task, Harrar et al. have found the same pattern of results (i.e., RT slowing in every stimulus conditions and fewer race model violations) with adults with developmental dyslexia \u003csup\u003e81\u003c/sup\u003e. Likewise, Salles et al., have also observed slower RT and diminished percentage multisensory gains in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome \u003csup\u003e91\u003c/sup\u003e, which itself has a higher incidence among preterm than full-term births \u003csup\u003e92\u003c/sup\u003e. In children, atypical multisensory integration has been found in individuals with autism \u003csup\u003e93\u003c/sup\u003e and ADHD \u003csup\u003e94\u003c/sup\u003e. However, most of these studies, including those with healthy children, do not report gestational age, but it is likely important that researchers systematically report such information.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome limitations of this study are worth mentioning. One limitation is that the VPT group is generally healthier than what is commonly reported in the literature \u003csup\u003e95,96\u003c/sup\u003e. Although this situation is hopefully becoming increasingly common thanks to advances in healthcare and their global dissemination/access, it does not represent the entire population of VPT children. Therefore, future research might want to investigate multisensory processes in VPT children with more serious impairments as these are likely children particularly at risk for long-term sequelae. Another consideration is the difference in SES between the groups. While we included SES as a covariate in our analyses here, this difference nonetheless underscores the importance of considering such factors both in research and in applications of findings when ideating interventions and/or rehabilitation strategies \u003csup\u003e97\u003c/sup\u003e. Another potential consideration is that the VPT children were carrying out the task as part as their clinical follow-up, which theoretically could have induced more stress than for FT children. In the current study, we focused on vision and auditory, but as young VPT children show impairments in all sensory modalities \u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e, future studies should test other senses, as well as behavioural responses, to evaluate more comprehensively their multisensory profiles. In this regard, it would likewise be informative for future works to obtain scholastic achievement data to allow for a more direct comparison between sensory and multisensory response profiles and everyday skills.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, these findings highlighted the persistent effects of prematurity into school age that manifest as altered sensory and multisensory processing. Therefore, there is a need for sensory interventions in the neonatal period such as proposed by Neel et al. \u003csup\u003e61\u003c/sup\u003e to improve the standard developmental care in the NICU as well as in early childhood to enhance their unisensory and multisensory processes that provide critical scaffolding for cognitive abilities and behaviour throughout the lifespan \u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e. Indeed, some supportive therapies are offered such as occupational therapy for sensorial hypersensitivity, visual therapy by orthoptists or hearing aids. But these therapies are only proposed to children with overt impairments and are not intended for cognitive purposes. Thus, our results provide evidence for developing new supportive interventions strengthening multisensory cognitive processes and targeting all vulnerable children.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSD, JS, and MD conceived of this specific study and its research questions. MD and SD collected the simple detection task data. SD extracted these data and provided the data of the reference group. CHV and LB collected and scored the neuropsychological data and CHV revised the manuscript. MD conducted the statistical analyses and wrote the first draft of the manuscript with additional edits, feedback, and guidance from J.S and M.M.M. MMM supervised and guided the analyses and revised the manuscript. JS and CF designed the main longitudinal study and revised the manuscript. JS supervised the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eACKNOWLEDGMENTS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur warmest thanks go to all the children and parents who took part in this longitudinal study and who have continued to participate over the years, making it possible to carry out various studies within our group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFUNDING\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by Fondation W. et E. Grand d\u0026rsquo;Hauteville in Lausanne (Switzerland). The funder played no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing of this manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Marion D\u0026eacute;caillet, upon reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors declare no financial or non-financial competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eETHICS STATEMENT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe project was reviewed and approved by the state ethics committee (CER-VD, protocol no. 2019-01056) and conforms to principles outlaid in the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiederich, A. \u0026amp; Colonius, H. Why two \u0026ldquo;Distractors\u0026rdquo; are better than one: modeling the effect of non-target auditory and tactile stimuli on visual saccadic reaction time. \u003cem\u003eExp. Brain Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e179\u003c/strong\u003e, 43\u0026ndash;54 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0768-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGillmeister, H. \u0026amp; Eimer, M. Tactile enhancement of auditory detection and perceived loudness. \u003cem\u003eBrain Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e1160\u003c/strong\u003e, 58\u0026ndash;68 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.03.041\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLovelace, C. T., Stein, B. E. \u0026amp; Wallace, M. T. An irrelevant light enhances auditory detection in humans: a psychophysical analysis of multisensory integration in stimulus detection. \u003cem\u003eCogn. Brain Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e, 447\u0026ndash;453 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(03)00160-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurray, M. M., Lewkowicz, D. J., Amedi, A. \u0026amp; Wallace, M. T. Multisensory Processes: A Balancing Act across the Lifespan. \u003cem\u003eTrends Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e39\u003c/strong\u003e, 567\u0026ndash;579 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27288-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChandrasekaran, C., Trubanova, A., Stillittano, S., Caplier, A. \u0026amp; Ghazanfar, A. A. The Natural Statistics of Audiovisual Speech. \u003cem\u003ePLOS Comput. Biol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, e1000436 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000436\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumby, W. H. \u0026amp; Pollack, I. Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise. \u003cem\u003eJ. Acoust. Soc. Am.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e, 212\u0026ndash;215 (1954). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907309\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimon, S. A., de Araujo, I. E., Gutierrez, R. \u0026amp; Nicolelis, M. A. The neural mechanisms of gustation: a distributed processing code. \u003cem\u003eNat. Rev. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, 890\u0026ndash;901 (2006).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerhagen, J. V. \u0026amp; Engelen, L. The neurocognitive bases of human multimodal food perception: Sensory integration. \u003cem\u003eNeurosci. Biobehav. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e, 613\u0026ndash;650 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.11.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlanke, O., Slater, M. \u0026amp; Serino, A. Behavioral, Neural, and Computational Principles of Bodily Self-Consciousness. \u003cem\u003eNeuron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e88\u003c/strong\u003e, 145\u0026ndash;166 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.029\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePress, C., Taylor-Clarke, M., Kennett, S. \u0026amp; Haggard, P. Visual enhancement of touch in spatial body representation. \u003cem\u003eExp. Brain Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e154\u003c/strong\u003e, 238\u0026ndash;245 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1651-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMatusz, P. J., Wallace, M. T. \u0026amp; Murray, M. M. A multisensory perspective on object memory. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e105\u003c/strong\u003e, 243\u0026ndash;252 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeitz, A. R., Kim, R. \u0026amp; Shams, L. Sound Facilitates Visual Learning. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Biol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 1422\u0026ndash;1427 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.048\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColonius, H. \u0026amp; Diederich, A. Formal models and quantitative measures of multisensory integration: a selective overview. \u003cem\u003eEur. J. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e51\u003c/strong\u003e, 1161\u0026ndash;1178 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13813\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes\u003c/em\u003e. (CRC Press, 2011). doi:10.1201/9781439812174.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStein, B. E. \u003cem\u003eThe new handbook of multisensory processing\u003c/em\u003e. (Mit Press, 2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlencowe, H. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e National, regional, and worldwide estimates of preterm birth rates in the year 2010 with time trends since 1990 for selected countries: a systematic analysis and implications. \u003cem\u003eThe lancet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e379\u003c/strong\u003e, 2162\u0026ndash;2172 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60820-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChawanpaiboon, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis. \u003cem\u003eLancet Glob. Health\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e, e37\u0026ndash;e46 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30451-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKey, A. P. F., Lambert, E. W., Aschner, J. L. \u0026amp; Maitre, N. L. Influence of gestational age and postnatal age on speech sound processing in NICU infants. \u003cem\u003ePsychophysiology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e, 720\u0026ndash;731 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01353.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaitre, N. L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Neonatal Multisensory Processing in Preterm and Term Infants Predicts Sensory Reactivity and Internalizing Tendencies in Early Childhood. \u003cem\u003eBrain Topogr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e, 586\u0026ndash;599 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10548-020-00791-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson-Costello, D., Friedman, H., Minich, N., Fanaroff, A. A. \u0026amp; Hack, M. Improved survival rates with increased neurodevelopmental disability for extremely low birth weight infants in the 1990s. \u003cem\u003ePediatrics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e115\u003c/strong\u003e, 997\u0026ndash;1003 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0221\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEl-Metwally, D. E. \u0026amp; Medina, A. E. The potential effects of NICU environment and multisensory stimulation in prematurity. \u003cem\u003ePediatr. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e88\u003c/strong\u003e, 161\u0026ndash;162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-019-0738-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBastien, A. Les stimulations auditives et pratiques langagi\u0026egrave;res aupr\u0026egrave;s de nouveau-n\u0026eacute;s pr\u0026eacute;matur\u0026eacute;s, dans la d\u0026eacute;marche des soins de d\u0026eacute;veloppement en service de n\u0026eacute;onatologie : revue de litt\u0026eacute;rature. (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBr\u0026ouml;ring, T., Oostrom, K. J., Lafeber, H. N., Jansma, E. P. \u0026amp; Oosterlaan, J. Sensory modulation in preterm children: Theoretical perspective and systematic review. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, e0170828 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170828\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuittard, C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Protocol for a prospective multicenter longitudinal randomized controlled trial (CALIN) of sensory-tonic stimulation to foster parent child interactions and social cognition in very premature infants. \u003cem\u003eFront. Pediatr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 913396 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.913396\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllain, A., Wehrli, A. \u0026amp; Roy, A. Une alliance de comp\u0026eacute;tences pour lutter contre la douleur du nouveau-n\u0026eacute; pr\u0026eacute;matur\u0026eacute;. \u003cem\u003eSoins P\u0026eacute;diatriePu\u0026eacute;riculture\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e38\u003c/strong\u003e, 20\u0026ndash;24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spp.2017.09.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoulet, M. Les troubles de l\u0026rsquo;oralit\u0026eacute; alimentaire chez l\u0026rsquo;enfant au d\u0026eacute;veloppement normo-typique et chez l\u0026rsquo;enfant autiste. Apports de la prise en charge pluridisciplinaire en groupe, selon l\u0026rsquo;approche sensori-motrice d\u0026rsquo;A. Bullinger. (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKey, A. P. F., Lambert, E. W., Aschner, J. L. \u0026amp; Maitre, N. L. Influence of gestational age and postnatal age on speech sound processing in NICU infants. \u003cem\u003ePsychophysiology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e, 720\u0026ndash;731 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01353.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaitre, N. L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The Dual Nature of Early-Life Experience on Somatosensory Processing in the Human Infant Brain. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Biol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e, 1048\u0026ndash;1054 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.036\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWickremasinghe, A. C. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Children born prematurely have atypical Sensory Profiles. \u003cem\u003eJ. Perinatol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e, 631\u0026ndash;635 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2013.12\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBr\u0026ouml;ring, T. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Sensory processing difficulties in school-age children born very preterm: An exploratory study. \u003cem\u003eEarly Hum. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e117\u003c/strong\u003e, 22\u0026ndash;31 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2017.12.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eten Oever, S. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The COGs (context, object, and goals) in multisensory processing. \u003cem\u003eExp. Brain Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e234\u003c/strong\u003e, 1307\u0026ndash;1323 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4590-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoyle, L. W., Spittle, A., Anderson, P. J. \u0026amp; Cheong, J. L. Y. School-aged neurodevelopmental outcomes for children born extremely preterm. \u003cem\u003eArch. Dis. Child.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e106\u003c/strong\u003e, 834\u0026ndash;838 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2021-321668\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJoseph, R. M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Neurocognitive and Academic Outcomes at Age 10 Years of Extremely Preterm Newborns. \u003cem\u003ePediatrics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e137\u003c/strong\u003e, e20154343 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4343\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, S. A. \u0026amp; Feldman, J. F. Memory and Processing Speed in Preterm Children at Eleven Years: A Comparison with Full-Terms. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e67\u003c/strong\u003e, 2005\u0026ndash;2021 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2307/1131606\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoleimani, F., Zaheri, F. \u0026amp; Abdi, F. Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Outcomes After Preterm Birth. \u003cem\u003eIran. Red Crescent Med. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, e17965 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.17965\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR\u0026eacute;veillon, M., H\u0026uuml;ppi, P. S. \u0026amp; Barisnikov, K. Inhibition difficulties in preterm children: Developmental delay or persistent deficit? \u003cem\u003eChild Neuropsychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e, 734\u0026ndash;762 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2017.1294665\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRitter, B. C., Nelle, M., Perrig, W., Steinlin, M. \u0026amp; Everts, R. Executive functions of children born very preterm\u0026mdash;deficit or delay? \u003cem\u003eEur. J. Pediatr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e172\u003c/strong\u003e, 473\u0026ndash;483 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-012-1906-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRitter, B. C., Perrig, W., Steinlin, M. \u0026amp; Everts, R. Cognitive and behavioral aspects of executive functions in children born very preterm. \u003cem\u003eChild Neuropsychol. J. Norm. Abnorm. Dev. Child. Adolesc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e, 129\u0026ndash;144 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2013.773968\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Jankowski, J. J. \u0026amp; Van Rossem, R. Basic information processing abilities at 11 years account for deficits in IQ associated with preterm birth. \u003cem\u003eIntelligence\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e39\u003c/strong\u003e, 198\u0026ndash;209 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKurpershoek, T., Potharst-Sirag, E. S., Aarnoudse-Moens, C. S. H. \u0026amp; van Wassenaer-Leemhuis, A. G. Minor neurological dysfunction in five year old very preterm children is associated with lower processing speed. \u003cem\u003eEarly Hum. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e103\u003c/strong\u003e, 55\u0026ndash;60 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2016.07.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMulder, H., Pitchford, N. J. \u0026amp; Marlow, N. Processing speed and working memory underlie academic attainment in very preterm children. \u003cem\u003eArch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e95\u003c/strong\u003e, F267-272 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2009.167965\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, S. A., Feldman, J. F. \u0026amp; Jankowski, J. J. Modeling a cascade of effects: The role of speed and executive functioning in preterm/full-term differences in academic achievement. \u003cem\u003eDev. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 1161\u0026ndash;1175 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01068.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDenervaud, S., Gentaz, E., Matusz, P. J. \u0026amp; Murray, M. M. Multisensory Gains in Simple Detection Predict Global Cognition in Schoolchildren. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 1394 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58329-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirch, H. G. \u0026amp; Belmont, L. Auditory visual integration in normal and retarded readers. \u003cem\u003eBull. Orton Soc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e, 48\u0026ndash;96 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02653757\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarutchu, A., Crewther, D. P. \u0026amp; Crewther, S. G. The race that precedes coactivation: development of multisensory facilitation in children. \u003cem\u003eDev. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e, 464\u0026ndash;473 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00782.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarutchu, A. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The Relationship Between Multisensory Integration and IQ in Children. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e47\u003c/strong\u003e, 877\u0026ndash;885 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021903\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarutchu, A., Fifer, J. M., Shivdasani, M. N., Crewther, S. G. \u0026amp; Paolini, A. G. The Interplay between Multisensory Associative Learning and IQ in Children. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13210\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Wallace, I. F. \u0026amp; McCarton, C. Information Processing at 1 Year: Relation to Birth Status and Developmental Outcome During the First 5 Years. [Miscellaneous Article]. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e, 723\u0026ndash;737 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.5.723\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, S. A., Feldman, J. F. \u0026amp; Wallace, I. F. Infant Information Processing in Relation to Six-Year Cognitive Outcomes. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e63\u003c/strong\u003e, 1126\u0026ndash;1141 (1992). https://doi.org/10.2307/1131522\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Futterweit, L. R. \u0026amp; Jankowski, J. J. Continuity in tactual\u0026ndash;visual cross-modal transfer: Infancy to 11 years. \u003cem\u003eDev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e34\u003c/strong\u003e, 435 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.3.435\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaab, D. H. Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. \u003cem\u003eTrans. N. Y. Acad. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e (1962).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, J. Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. \u003cem\u003eCognit. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e, 247\u0026ndash;279 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90010-X\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrandwein, A. B. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e The development of audiovisual multisensory integration across childhood and early adolescence: a high-density electrical mapping study. \u003cem\u003eCereb. Cortex\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e21\u003c/strong\u003e, 1042\u0026ndash;1055 (2011). 1042‑1055. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq170\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSperdin, H., Cappe, C., Foxe, J. \u0026amp; Murray, M. Early, low-level auditory-somatosensory multisensory interactions impact reaction time speed. \u003cem\u003eFront. Integr. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e, (2009). https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.07.002.2009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSperdin, H. F., Cappe, C. \u0026amp; Murray, M. M. The behavioral relevance of multisensory neural response interactions. \u003cem\u003eFront. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e, 9 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.01.009.2010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurr, D. \u0026amp; Gori, M. Multisensory integration develops late in humans. (2012).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStreri, A. Cross-modal recognition of shape from hand to eyes in human newborns. \u003cem\u003eSomatosens. Mot. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;18 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1080/0899022031000083799\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson, E. J. \u0026amp; Walker, A. S. Development of knowledge of visual-tactual affordances of substance. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e55\u003c/strong\u003e, 453\u0026ndash;460 (1984).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRose, S. A. Developmental changes in infants\u0026rsquo; retention of visual stimuli. \u003cem\u003eChild Dev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e52\u003c/strong\u003e, 227\u0026ndash;233 (1981).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeil, P. A., Chee-Ruiter, C., Scheier, C., Lewkowicz, D. J. \u0026amp; Shimojo, S. Development of multisensory spatial integration and perception in humans. \u003cem\u003eDev. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, 454\u0026ndash;464 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00512.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeel, M. L. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Randomized controlled trial protocol to improve multisensory neural processing, language and motor outcomes in preterm infants. \u003cem\u003eBMC Pediatr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 81 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1455-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchneider, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Evolution of T1 Relaxation, ADC, and Fractional Anisotropy during Early Brain Maturation: A Serial Imaging Study on Preterm Infants. \u003cem\u003eAm. J. Neuroradiol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, 155\u0026ndash;162 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4510\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLargo, R. H. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Significance of prenatal, perinatal and postnatal factors in the development of AGA preterm infants at five to seven years. \u003cem\u003eDev. Med. Child Neurol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 440\u0026ndash;456 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1989.tb04022.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGenoud, P. A. Indice de position socio\u0026eacute;conomique: un calcul simplifi\u0026eacute;. \u003cem\u003eFribg. Univ. Fribg. Doc. Non Publ.\u003c/em\u003e (2011).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParham, L. D., Ecker, C. L., Kuhaneck, H. M., Henry, D. A. \u0026amp; Glennon, T. J. Sensory Processing Measure, (SPM-2). (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWechsler, D. \u003cem\u003eWISC-V: Technical and interpretive manual\u003c/em\u003e. (NCS Pearson, Incorporated, 2014).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeiffer, A. M., Mozolic, J. L., Hugenschmidt, C. E. \u0026amp; Laurienti, P. J. Age-related multisensory enhancement in a simple audiovisual detection task. \u003cem\u003eNeuroReport\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e, 1077 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3281e72ae7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eR Core Team: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018. \u003cem\u003eAvailable \u003c/em\u003ehttps://www.r-project.org/ (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomei, V., Murray, M. M., Cappe, C. \u0026amp; Thut, G. The Contributions of Sensory Dominance and Attentional Bias to Cross-modal Enhancement of Visual Cortex Excitability. \u003cem\u003eJ. Cogn. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e, 1122\u0026ndash;1135 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00367\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurray, M. M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Sensory dominance and multisensory integration as screening tools in aging. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e, 8901 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27288-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarutchu, A., Crewther, S. G., Kiely, P., Murphy, M. J. \u0026amp; Crewther, D. P. When/b/ill with/g/ill becomes/d/ill: Evidence for a lexical effect in audiovisual speech perception. \u003cem\u003eEur. J. Cogn. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;11 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601125623\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBreeman, L. D., Jaekel, J., Baumann, N., Bartmann, P. \u0026amp; Wolke, D. Attention problems in very preterm children from childhood to adulthood: the Bavarian Longitudinal Study. \u003cem\u003eJ. Child Psychol. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e57\u003c/strong\u003e, 132\u0026ndash;140 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12456\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Kieviet, J. F., van Elburg, R. M., Lafeber, H. N. \u0026amp; Oosterlaan, J. Attention Problems of Very Preterm Children Compared with Age-Matched Term Controls at School-Age. \u003cem\u003eJ. Pediatr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e161\u003c/strong\u003e, 824-829.e1 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.05.010\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarnoudse-Moens, C. S. H., Smidts, D. P., Oosterlaan, J., Duivenvoorden, H. J. \u0026amp; Weisglas-Kuperus, N. Executive Function in Very Preterm Children at Early School Age. \u003cem\u003eJ. Abnorm. Child Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e37\u003c/strong\u003e, 981\u0026ndash;993 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.06.052\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeredith, M. A. \u0026amp; Stein, B. E. Interactions among converging sensory inputs in the superior colliculus. \u003cem\u003eScience\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e221\u003c/strong\u003e, 389\u0026ndash;391 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6867718\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurray, M. M., Thelen, A., Ionta, S. \u0026amp; Wallace, M. T. Contributions of Intraindividual and Interindividual Differences to Multisensory Processes. \u003cem\u003eJ. Cogn. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e, 360\u0026ndash;376 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01246\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOtto, T. U., Dassy, B. \u0026amp; Mamassian, P. Principles of Multisensory Behavior. \u003cem\u003eJ. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e33\u003c/strong\u003e, 7463\u0026ndash;7474 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4678-12.2013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastellanos, F. X. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Varieties of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Related Intra-Individual Variability. \u003cem\u003eBiol. Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e57\u003c/strong\u003e, 1416\u0026ndash;1423 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.12.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurray, M. M., Foxe, J. J., Higgins, B. A., Javitt, D. C. \u0026amp; Schroeder, C. E. Visuo-spatial neural response interactions in early cortical processing during a simple reaction time task: a high-density electrical mapping study. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e39\u003c/strong\u003e, 828\u0026ndash;844 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00004-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWallace, M. T., Woynaroski, T. G. \u0026amp; Stevenson, R. A. Multisensory integration as a window into orderly and disrupted cognition and communication. \u003cem\u003eAnnu. Rev. Psychol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e71\u003c/strong\u003e, 193\u0026ndash;219 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051112\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarrar, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Multisensory Integration and Attention in Developmental Dyslexia. \u003cem\u003eCurr. Biol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e, 531\u0026ndash;535 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.029\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePulliam, G., Feldman, J. I. \u0026amp; Woynaroski, T. G. Audiovisual multisensory integration in individuals with reading and language impairments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eNeurosci. Biobehav. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e149\u003c/strong\u003e, 105130 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105130\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuak, M., London, R. E. \u0026amp; Talsma, D. A multisensory perspective of working memory. \u003cem\u003eFront. Hum. Neurosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e, (2015). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00197\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarnoudse-Moens, C. S. H., Oosterlaan, J., Duivenvoorden, H. J., van Goudoever, J. B. \u0026amp; Weisglas-Kuperus, N. Development of Preschool and Academic Skills in Children Born Very Preterm. \u003cem\u003eJ. Pediatr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e158\u003c/strong\u003e, 51\u0026ndash;56 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.06.052\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuu, T. M., Vohr, B. R., Allan, W., Schneider, K. C. \u0026amp; Ment, L. R. Evidence for Catch-up in Cognition and Receptive Vocabulary Among Adolescents Born Very Preterm. \u003cem\u003ePediatrics\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e128\u003c/strong\u003e, 313\u0026ndash;322 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2655\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVohr, B. Speech and language outcomes of very preterm infants. \u003cem\u003eSemin. Fetal. Neonatal Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e, 78\u0026ndash;83 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2013.10.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranck, L. S., Waddington, C. \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Brien, K. Family integrated care for preterm infants. \u003cem\u003eCrit. Care Nurs. Clin.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e32\u003c/strong\u003e, 149\u0026ndash;165 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnc.2020.01.001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAltimier, L. \u0026amp; Phillips, R. The neonatal integrative developmental care model: advanced clinical applications of the seven core measures for neuroprotective family-centered developmental care. \u003cem\u003eNewborn Infant Nurs. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e, 230\u0026ndash;244 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1053/j.nainr.2016.09.030\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, C. W., Moya, F. \u0026amp; Lynch, N. Unintended Consequences of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Environment: Integrative Review of Single-Family Room Unit Design. \u003cem\u003eAdv. Neonatal Care Off. J. Natl. Assoc. Neonatal Nurses\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e, 151\u0026ndash;159 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000001023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchulz, S. E. \u0026amp; Stevenson, R. A. Differentiating between sensory sensitivity and sensory reactivity in relation to restricted interests and repetitive behaviours. \u003cem\u003eAutism\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e, 121\u0026ndash;134 (2020).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalles, J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Deficits in voice and multisensory processing in patients with Prader-Willi syndrome. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e85\u003c/strong\u003e, 137\u0026ndash;147 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.03.015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ccedil;izmecioğlu, F. M. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Neonatal Features of the Prader-Willi Syndrome; The Case for Making the Diagnosis During the First Week of Life. \u003cem\u003eJ. Clin. Res. \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePediatr. Endocrinol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e, 264\u0026ndash;273 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4274/jcrpe.0029\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFeldman, J. I. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Audiovisual multisensory integration in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eNeurosci. Biobehav. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e95\u003c/strong\u003e, 220\u0026ndash;234 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.09.020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDionne-Dostie, E., Paquette, N., Lassonde, M. \u0026amp; Gallagher, A. Multisensory Integration and Child Neurodevelopment. \u003cem\u003eBrain Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e, 32\u0026ndash;57 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci5010032\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePierrat, V. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 5 among children born preterm: EPIPAGE-2 cohort study. \u003cem\u003eBMJ\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e373\u003c/strong\u003e, n741 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n741\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoodward, L. J. \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e Very preterm children show impairments across multiple neurodevelopmental domains by age 4 years. \u003cem\u003eArch. Dis. Child.-Fetal Neonatal Ed.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e94\u003c/strong\u003e, 339\u0026ndash;344 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/adc.2008.146282\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHackman, D. A. \u0026amp; Farah, M. J. Socioeconomic status and the developing brain. \u003cem\u003eTrends Cogn. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e, 65\u0026ndash;73 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-science-of-learning","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjscilearn","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Science of Learning](http://www.nature.com/npjscilearn/)","snPcode":"41539","submissionUrl":"https://mts-npjscilearn.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"npj Science of Learning","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"NPJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"multisensory, auditory, visual, preterm, premature, development","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3542746/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3542746/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eInteractions between stimuli from different sensory modalities and their integration are central to daily life, contributing to improved perception. Being born prematurely and the subsequent hospitalization can have an impact not only on sensory processes, but also on the manner in which information from different senses is combined \u0026ndash; i.e., multisensory processes. Very preterm (VPT) children (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;32 weeks gestational age) present impaired multisensory processes in early childhood persisting at least through the age of five. However, it remains largely unknown whether and how these consequences persist into later childhood. Here, we evaluated the integrity of auditory-visual multisensory processes in VPT schoolchildren. VPT children (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;28; aged 8\u0026ndash;10 years) received a standardized cognitive assessment and performed a simple detection task at their routine follow-up appointment. The simple detection task involved pressing a button as quickly as possible upon presentation of an auditory, visual, or simultaneous audio-visual stimulus. Compared to full-term (FT) children (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23; aged 6\u0026ndash;11 years), reaction times of VPT children were generally slower and more variable, regardless of sensory modality. Nonetheless, both groups exhibited multisensory facilitation on mean reaction times and inter-quartile ranges. There was no evidence that standardized cognitive or clinical measures correlated with multisensory gains of VPT children. However, while gains in FT children exceeded predictions based on probability summation and thus forcibly invoked integrative processes, this was not the case for VPT children. Our findings provide evidence of atypical multisensory profiles in VPT children persisting into school-age. These results could help in targeting supportive interventions for this vulnerable population.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Impact of Premature Birth on Multisensory Processes in Very Preterm Schoolchildren","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-05 18:01:03","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3542746/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"revise","date":"2024-03-19T08:33:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2024-03-17T12:05:43+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2024-03-10T15:08:54+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2024-02-23T09:19:25+00:00","index":2,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"This content is not available.","date":"2024-02-15T14:03:22+00:00","index":1,"fulltext":"This content is not available."},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-01-03T14:26:33+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2023-11-02T11:10:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2023-11-02T09:49:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj Science of Learning","date":"2023-11-02T09:49:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-science-of-learning","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjscilearn","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Science of Learning](http://www.nature.com/npjscilearn/)","snPcode":"41539","submissionUrl":"https://mts-npjscilearn.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"npj Science of Learning","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"NPJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"79363207-42b9-4d1b-9161-73ea6d4c425f","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 5th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":27928577,"name":"Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour"},{"id":27928578,"name":"Scientific community and society/Social sciences/Education"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-07-07T07:05:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3542746","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00257-3","journal":{"identity":"npj-science-of-learning","isVorOnly":false,"title":"npj Science of Learning"},"publishedOn":"2024-07-06 04:00:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"July 6th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-05 18:01:03","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41539-024-00257-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00257-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3542746","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3542746","identity":"rs-3542746","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}