Response Bias Reveals Enhanced Attention to Inferior Visual Field in Signers of American Sign Language

Overview

Journal Exp Brain Res

Specialty Neurology

Date 2015 Dec 29

PMID 26708522

Citations 6

Authors

Matthew W G Dye

Jenessa L Seymour

Peter C Hauser

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Deafness results in cross-modal plasticity, whereby visual functions are altered as a consequence of a lack of hearing. Here, we present a reanalysis of data originally reported by Dye et al. (PLoS One 4(5):e5640, 2009) with the aim of testing additional hypotheses concerning the spatial redistribution of visual attention due to deafness and the use of a visuogestural language (American Sign Language). By looking at the spatial distribution of errors made by deaf and hearing participants performing a visuospatial selective attention task, we sought to determine whether there was evidence for (1) a shift in the hemispheric lateralization of visual selective function as a result of deafness, and (2) a shift toward attending to the inferior visual field in users of a signed language. While no evidence was found for or against a shift in lateralization of visual selective attention as a result of deafness, a shift in the allocation of attention from the superior toward the inferior visual field was inferred in native signers of American Sign Language, possibly reflecting an adaptation to the perceptual demands imposed by a visuogestural language.

Citing Articles

Research of visual attention networks in deaf individuals: a systematic review.

Gioiosa Maurno N, Phillips-Silver J, Daza Gonzalez M Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1369941.

PMID: 38800679 PMC: 11120974. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1369941.

Manual and Spoken Cues in French Sign Language's Lexical Access: Evidence From Mouthing in a Sign-Picture Priming Paradigm.

Bogliotti C, Isel F Front Psychol. 2021; 12:655168.

PMID: 34113290 PMC: 8185165. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655168.

Effects of deafness and sign language experience on the human brain: voxel-based and surface-based morphometry.

McCullough S, Emmorey K Lang Cogn Neurosci. 2021; 36(4):422-439.

PMID: 33959670 PMC: 8096161. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2020.1854793.

Analysis of the visual spatiotemporal properties of American Sign Language.

Bosworth R, Wright C, Dobkins K Vision Res. 2019; 164:34-43.

PMID: 31557606 PMC: 6783377. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2019.08.008.

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

Gwinn O, Jiang F J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2019; 25(1):1-9.

PMID: 31407782 PMC: 6951033. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enz030.

References

Bavelier D, Dye M, Hauser P . Do deaf individuals see better?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006; 10(11):512-8. PMC: 2885708. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.006. View

Merabet L, Pascual-Leone A . Neural reorganization following sensory loss: the opportunity of change. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009; 11(1):44-52. PMC: 3898172. DOI: 10.1038/nrn2758. View

Cattaneo Z, Lega C, Cecchetto C, Papagno C . Auditory deprivation affects biases of visuospatial attention as measured by line bisection. Exp Brain Res. 2014; 232(9):2767-73. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-3960-7. View

Mitchell T, Letourneau S, Maslin M . Behavioral and neural evidence of increased attention to the bottom half of the face in deaf signers. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2012; 31(2):125-39. PMC: 3642984. DOI: 10.3233/RNN-120233. View

Proksch J, Bavelier D . Changes in the spatial distribution of visual attention after early deafness. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002; 14(5):687-701. DOI: 10.1162/08989290260138591. View

Letourneau S, Mitchell T . Gaze patterns during identity and emotion judgments in hearing adults and deaf users of American Sign Language. Perception. 2011; 40(5):563-75. PMC: 3454476. DOI: 10.1068/p6858. View

Bavelier D, Brozinsky C, Tomann A, Mitchell T, Neville H, Liu G . Impact of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral organization for motion processing. J Neurosci. 2001; 21(22):8931-42. PMC: 6762265. View

Ball K, Beard B, Roenker D, Miller R, Griggs D . Age and visual search: expanding the useful field of view. J Opt Soc Am A. 1988; 5(12):2210-9. DOI: 10.1364/josaa.5.002210. View

Lavie N . Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995; 21(3):451-68. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.451. View

10.

Sladen D, Tharpe A, Ashmead D, Grantham D, Chun M . Visual attention in deaf and normal hearing adults: effects of stimulus compatibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006; 48(6):1529-37. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/106). View

11.

Muir L, Richardson I . Perception of sign language and its application to visual communications for deaf people. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2005; 10(4):390-401. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/eni037. View

12.

Emmorey K, Thompson R, Colvin R . Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2008; 14(2):237-43. DOI: 10.1093/deafed/enn037. View

13.

Ball K, Owsley C . The useful field of view test: a new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. J Am Optom Assoc. 1993; 64(1):71-9. View

14.

Dye M, Hauser P, Bavelier D . Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? The case of the useful field of view. PLoS One. 2009; 4(5):e5640. PMC: 2680667. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005640. View

15.

Bosworth R, Dobkins K . Visual field asymmetries for motion processing in deaf and hearing signers. Brain Cogn. 2002; 49(1):170-81. DOI: 10.1006/brcg.2001.1498. View

16.

Feng J, Spence I . Upper visual field advantage in localizing a target among distractors. Iperception. 2014; 5(2):97-100. PMC: 4249996. DOI: 10.1068/i0625rep. View

17.

Dye M, Baril D, Bavelier D . Which aspects of visual attention are changed by deafness? The case of the Attentional Network Test. Neuropsychologia. 2007; 45(8):1801-11. PMC: 2885017. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.019. View

18.

LEVITT H . Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971; 49(2):Suppl 2:467+. View

19.

WETHERILL G, LEVITT H . SEQUENTIAL ESTIMATION OF POINTS ON A PSYCHOMETRIC FUNCTION. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1965; 18:1-10. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1965.tb00689.x. View

20.

Edwards J, Vance D, Wadley V, Cissell G, Roenker D, Ball K . Reliability and validity of useful field of view test scores as administered by personal computer. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2005; 27(5):529-43. DOI: 10.1080/13803390490515432. View