Literature DB >> 10511644

Do deaf people see better? Texture segmentation and visual search compensate in adult but not in juvenile subjects.

R Rettenbach1, G Diller, R Sireteanu.   

Abstract

The research concerning the visual perception in deaf subjects has led to contradictory results: Deaf subjects have been reported to show enhanced visual perceptual skills compared to hearing subjects (Neville & Lawson, 1987). On the other hand, there are indications that acoustic deprivation may produce an inferiority in all sensory modalities (Myklebust, 1964). These contradictions may be due to methodological differences: The investigators selected different conditions (e.g. attentive/nonattentive) and various samples of deaf subjects (e.g., different age, language, and aetiology groups). In our study, we tested a large sample of deaf subjects with texture segmentation and visual search conditions, which allowed us to differentiate between visual processing with and without attentional load. All deaf subjects had profound hearing loss within the first year of life. Our results suggest that the visual processing capacity of deaf children and adolescents does not exceed that of age- and gender-matched hearing subjects. Rather, deaf school children show deficits in visual processing in conditions with and without attentional load. Age (6 to 20 years), language used (oral, sign, oral + sign), and aetiology for deafness (genetic, maternal rubella, perinatal, infection in the first year of life, unknown) did not consistently influence the results. The deficits in visual processing were partially compensated for in adult deaf subjects. The performances of deaf and hearing adults in trials that could be solved preattentively did not differ statistically significantly, but in attention-dependent trials the deaf subjects were more efficient than the hearing controls. We conclude that visual compensation for deafness is limited to attention-dependent tasks and does not develop until adulthood.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10511644     DOI: 10.1162/089892999563616

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 0898-929X            Impact factor:   3.225


  15 in total

1.  Classroom Interpreting and Visual Information Processing in Mainstream Education for Deaf Students: Live or Memorex?

Authors:  Marc Marschark; Jeff B Pelz; Carol Convertino; Patricia Sapere; Mary Ellen Arndt; Rosemarie Seewagen
Journal:  Am Educ Res J       Date:  2005

Review 2.  Do deaf individuals see better?

Authors:  Daphne Bavelier; Matthew W G Dye; Peter C Hauser
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2006-10-02       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Which aspects of visual attention are changed by deafness? The case of the Attentional Network Test.

Authors:  Matthew W G Dye; Dara E Baril; Daphne Bavelier
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 3.139

4.  Cognitive adaptations arising from nonnative experience of sign language in hearing adults.

Authors:  Miadeleine Keehner; Susan E Gathercole
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-06

5.  Understanding Language, Hearing Status, and Visual-Spatial Skills.

Authors:  Marc Marschark; Linda J Spencer; Andreana Durkin; Georgianna Borgna; Carol Convertino; Elizabeth Machmer; William G Kronenberger; Alexandra Trani
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2015-07-03

6.  Finding the spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) in signed numbers: notational effects in accessing number representation.

Authors:  Alessandro Chinello; Maria Dolores de Hevia; Carlo Geraci; Luisa Girelli
Journal:  Funct Neurol       Date:  2012 Jul-Sep

7.  Don't Assume Deaf Students are Visual Learners.

Authors:  Marc Marschark; Allan Paivio; Linda J Spencer; Andreana Durkin; Georgianna Borgna; Carol Convertino; Elizabeth Machmer
Journal:  J Dev Phys Disabil       Date:  2016-06-02

8.  Deafness and visual enumeration: not all aspects of attention are modified by deafness.

Authors:  Peter C Hauser; Matthew W G Dye; Mrim Boutla; C Shawn Green; Daphne Bavelier
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 3.252

9.  Are attempts to have impaired children justifiable?

Authors:  K W Anstey
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? The case of the useful field of view.

Authors:  Matthew W G Dye; Peter C Hauser; Daphne Bavelier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-05-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.