Literature DB >> 16768371

Neuroplasticity as a double-edged sword: deaf enhancements and dyslexic deficits in motion processing.

Courtney Stevens1, Helen Neville.   

Abstract

We examined the hypothesis that aspects of processing that are most modifiable by experience (i.e., "plastic") display the most vulnerability in developmental disorders and the most compensatory enhancement after sensory deprivation. A large literature reports that motion processing and magnocellular visual function is selectively deficient in dyslexia. A smaller literature reports enhancements in such functions in deaf individuals. However, studies with dyslexic and deaf individuals have used different experimental paradigms to assess visual function, and no research has yet examined both sides of modifiability (i.e., enhancements and deficits) using the same experimental paradigm. In the present research, visual function was compared in dyslexic (n=15), deaf (n=17), and control adults by using automated peripheral kinetic and foveal static perimetry. In the kinetic perimetry task, the dyslexic group showed deficits ( p<.003), whereas the deaf group showed enhancements ( p<.001) for detecting moving light points in the periphery. In the foveal static perimetry task, neither the dyslexic ( p=.866) nor the deaf ( p=.632) group differed significantly from controls in foveal contrast sensitivity thresholds, and no group or individual approached ceiling performance on this task. Taken together, the present data bridge previous literatures and suggest that motion processing tasks are selectively modifiable, either to decrement or enhancement, whereas foveal contrast sensitivity does not differ in dyslexic or deaf groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16768371     DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.701

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


  31 in total

1.  Spatial gradients of oculomotor inhibition of return in deaf and normal adults.

Authors:  Srikant Jayaraman; Raymond M Klein; Matthew D Hilchey; Gouri Shanker Patil; Ramesh Kumar Mishra
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Foveal Processing Under Concurrent Peripheral Load in Profoundly Deaf Adults.

Authors:  Matthew W G Dye
Journal:  J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ       Date:  2015-12-10

Review 3.  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

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.  Visual temporal order judgment in profoundly deaf individuals.

Authors:  Elena Nava; Davide Bottari; Massimiliano Zampini; Francesco Pavani
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Task-specific reorganization of the auditory cortex in deaf humans.

Authors:  Łukasz Bola; Maria Zimmermann; Piotr Mostowski; Katarzyna Jednoróg; Artur Marchewka; Paweł Rutkowski; Marcin Szwed
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  The sign superiority effect: Lexical status facilitates peripheral handshape identification for deaf signers.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Schotter; Emily Johnson; Amy M Lieberman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Neuroplasticity of selective attention: Research foundations and preliminary evidence for a gene by intervention interaction.

Authors:  Elif Isbell; Courtney Stevens; Eric Pakulak; Amanda Hampton Wray; Theodore A Bell; Helen J Neville
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 11.205

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.  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.