Literature DB >> 15325408

Motion velocity thresholds in deaf signers: changes in lateralization but not in overall sensitivity.

Craig J Brozinsky1, Daphne Bavelier.   

Abstract

In a series of three experiments, we tested whether deaf native signers process motion velocity information differently from hearing nonsigners. In Experiment 1, participants watched radially moving dots and were asked to detect the quadrant in which the velocity of the dots had changed. Similar 79% thresholds were observed in the two populations. In Experiments 2 and 3, peripheral and central thresholds were assessed separately as previous studies suggest early deafness leads mainly to changes in the processing of visual peripheral information. Neither condition produced an overall population difference. These negative results were not due to a lack of sensitivity in our experiments. Indeed, as has been previously reported, deaf native signers exhibited better thresholds in the right than in the left visual field, whereas the opposite pattern was observed in the hearing. This effect appears triggered by experience with American Sign Language (ASL) rather than deafness per se. Overall, this study confirms that early deafness does not enhance motion processing, and suggests that most of the changes previously described in the literature are instead attributable to changes in attention, and possibly special alterations of attention-to-motion processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15325408     DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.05.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res        ISSN: 0926-6410


  19 in total

1.  Cross-modal plasticity in specific auditory cortices underlies visual compensations in the deaf.

Authors:  Stephen G Lomber; M Alex Meredith; Andrej Kral
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2010-10-10       Impact factor: 24.884

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.  Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators.

Authors:  J Rouger; S Lagleyre; B Fraysse; S Deneve; O Deguine; P Barone
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  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

5.  Analysis of the visual spatiotemporal properties of American Sign Language.

Authors:  Rain G Bosworth; Charles E Wright; Karen R Dobkins
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2019-09-23       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Auditory deprivation affects biases of visuospatial attention as measured by line bisection.

Authors:  Zaira Cattaneo; Carlotta Lega; Carlo Cecchetto; Costanza Papagno
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Cortical plasticity for visuospatial processing and object recognition in deaf and hearing signers.

Authors:  Jill Weisberg; Daniel S Koo; Kelly L Crain; Guinevere F Eden
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Hemispheric Asymmetries in Deaf and Hearing During Sustained Peripheral Selective Attention.

Authors:  O Scott Gwinn; Fang Jiang
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2020-01-03

Review 9.  Visual skills and cross-modal plasticity in deaf readers: possible implications for acquiring meaning from print.

Authors:  Matthew W G Dye; Peter C Hauser; Daphne Bavelier
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 5.691

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.