Literature DB >> 26183014

The role of visual deprivation and experience on the performance of sensory substitution devices.

H Christiaan Stronks1, Amy C Nau2, Michael R Ibbotson3, Nick Barnes4.   

Abstract

It is commonly accepted that the blind can partially compensate for their loss of vision by developing enhanced abilities with their remaining senses. This visual compensation may be related to the fact that blind people rely on their other senses in everyday life. Many studies have indeed shown that experience plays an important role in visual compensation. Numerous neuroimaging studies have shown that the visual cortices of the blind are recruited by other functional brain areas and can become responsive to tactile or auditory input instead. These cross-modal plastic changes are more pronounced in the early blind compared to late blind individuals. The functional consequences of cross-modal plasticity on visual compensation in the blind are debated, as are the influences of various etiologies of vision loss (i.e., blindness acquired early or late in life). Distinguishing between the influences of experience and visual deprivation on compensation is especially relevant for rehabilitation of the blind with sensory substitution devices. The BrainPort artificial vision device and The vOICe are assistive devices for the blind that redirect visual information to another intact sensory system. Establishing how experience and different etiologies of vision loss affect the performance of these devices may help to improve existing rehabilitation strategies, formulate effective selection criteria and develop prognostic measures. In this review we will discuss studies that investigated the influence of training and visual deprivation on the performance of various sensory substitution approaches.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cross-modal plasticity; Learning; Rehabilitation; Sensory substitution; Training; Visual deprivation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26183014     DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.06.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Res        ISSN: 0006-8993            Impact factor:   3.252


  6 in total

1.  A brain-computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control.

Authors:  Jennifer L Collinger; Robert A Gaunt; Sharlene N Flesher; John E Downey; Jeffrey M Weiss; Christopher L Hughes; Angelica J Herrera; Elizabeth C Tyler-Kabara; Michael L Boninger
Journal:  Science       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Blindness and the Reliability of Downwards Sensors to Avoid Obstacles: A Study with the EyeCane.

Authors:  Maxime Bleau; Samuel Paré; Ismaël Djerourou; Daniel R Chebat; Ron Kupers; Maurice Ptito
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 3.576

3.  Spatial navigation with horizontally spatialized sounds in early and late blind individuals.

Authors:  Samuel Paré; Maxime Bleau; Ismaël Djerourou; Vincent Malotaux; Ron Kupers; Maurice Ptito
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Multi-Section Sensing and Vibrotactile Perception for Walking Guide of Visually Impaired Person.

Authors:  Gu-Young Jeong; Kee-Ho Yu
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Blindfolded Balance Training in Patients with Parkinson's Disease: A Sensory-Motor Strategy to Improve the Gait.

Authors:  M Tramontano; S Bonnì; A Martino Cinnera; F Marchetti; C Caltagirone; G Koch; A Peppe
Journal:  Parkinsons Dis       Date:  2016-02-09

Review 6.  Designing sensory-substitution devices: Principles, pitfalls and potential1.

Authors:  Árni Kristjánsson; Alin Moldoveanu; Ómar I Jóhannesson; Oana Balan; Simone Spagnol; Vigdís Vala Valgeirsdóttir; Rúnar Unnthorsson
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 2.406

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.