PURPOSE: Several studies have reported faster response time to visual stimuli in profoundly deaf individuals. This result is often linked to the processing of peripheral targets, and it is assumed to occur in relation to attention orienting. We evaluated whether enhanced reactivity to visual events in profoundly deaf individuals can be explained by faster orienting of visual attention alone. METHODS: We examined 11 deaf individuals and 11 hearing controls, in a simple detection task and in a shape discrimination task. While simple detection can be performed under distributed attention, shape discrimination requires orienting of spatial attention to the target. The same visual targets served for both tasks, presented at central or peripheral locations and corrected for cortical magnification. RESULTS: The simple detection task revealed faster RTs in deaf than hearing controls, regardless of target location. Moreover, while hearing controls paid a cost in responding to peripheral than central targets, deaf participants performed equally well regardless of target eccentricity. In the shape discrimination task deaf never outperformed hearing controls. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal that enhanced reactivity to visual stimuli in the deaf cannot be explained only by faster orienting of visual attention and can emerge for central as well as peripheral targets. Moreover, the persisting advantage for peripheral locations in the deaf, observed here under distributed attention, suggests that this spatially-selective effect could result from reorganised sensory processing rather than different attentional gradients.
PURPOSE: Several studies have reported faster response time to visual stimuli in profoundly deaf individuals. This result is often linked to the processing of peripheral targets, and it is assumed to occur in relation to attention orienting. We evaluated whether enhanced reactivity to visual events in profoundly deaf individuals can be explained by faster orienting of visual attention alone. METHODS: We examined 11 deaf individuals and 11 hearing controls, in a simple detection task and in a shape discrimination task. While simple detection can be performed under distributed attention, shape discrimination requires orienting of spatial attention to the target. The same visual targets served for both tasks, presented at central or peripheral locations and corrected for cortical magnification. RESULTS: The simple detection task revealed faster RTs in deaf than hearing controls, regardless of target location. Moreover, while hearing controls paid a cost in responding to peripheral than central targets, deaf participants performed equally well regardless of target eccentricity. In the shape discrimination task deaf never outperformed hearing controls. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal that enhanced reactivity to visual stimuli in the deaf cannot be explained only by faster orienting of visual attention and can emerge for central as well as peripheral targets. Moreover, the persisting advantage for peripheral locations in the deaf, observed here under distributed attention, suggests that this spatially-selective effect could result from reorganised sensory processing rather than different attentional gradients.
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
Authors: Rüdiger Land; Peter Baumhoff; Jochen Tillein; Stephen G Lomber; Peter Hubka; Andrej Kral Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Karolyne Dell Ducas; Antonio Carlos da S Senra Filho; Pedro Henrique Rodrigues Silva; Kaio Felippe Secchinato; Renata Ferranti Leoni; Antonio Carlos Santos Journal: Brain Struct Funct Date: 2021-03-19 Impact factor: 3.270
Authors: Ryan A Stevenson; Sterling W Sheffield; Iliza M Butera; René H Gifford; Mark T Wallace Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 3.570