2015
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141324
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Exogenous Cues on Covert Spatial Orienting in Deaf and Normal Hearing Individuals

Abstract: Deaf individuals have been known to process visual stimuli better at the periphery compared to the normal hearing population. However, very few studies have examined attention orienting in the oculomotor domain in the deaf, particularly when targets appear at variable eccentricity. In this study, we examined if the visual perceptual processing advantage reported in the deaf people also modulates spatial attentional orienting with eye movement responses. We used a spatial cueing task with cued and uncued target… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, it was posited that deafness leads to a greater focus of attention within the peripheral field. This result has been observed in studies using various visual attention paradigms, as deaf individuals show higher interference by peripheral distractors or faster reactions to stimuli within the periphery [106108]. Sign language alone is not sufficient to induce these changes [107, 108].…”
Section: Adaptation To Auditory Deprivationmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Overall, it was posited that deafness leads to a greater focus of attention within the peripheral field. This result has been observed in studies using various visual attention paradigms, as deaf individuals show higher interference by peripheral distractors or faster reactions to stimuli within the periphery [106108]. Sign language alone is not sufficient to induce these changes [107, 108].…”
Section: Adaptation To Auditory Deprivationmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Either, cueing effects rise with eccentricity (cueing near periphery < cueing medium periphery < cueing far periphery. This would constitute a quantitative difference between near, medium, and far periphery and is supported by rising cueing effects found in the near and medium periphery (e.g., [15,34,36] and several studies using peripheral cues in combination with a detection task failed to reveal cueing effects beyond the EOMR [16,[45][46][47]. This would constitute a qualitative difference between near and medium and the far periphery.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…e.g., [33]; ([34], Exp. 2); [35,36]). Furthermore, attention diminishes the influence of crowding [32].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They reported having acquired sign language at an average age of 9.4 years and reported high proficiency in sign language use (Mean self-rating score: 3; see ref. 18 for details of this scale). Participants with normal hearing were all students at the University of Hyderabad.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%