Is visual perception of hearing-impaired children different from healthy children?

Erden, Zafer; Otman, Saadet; Tunay, Volga Bayrakçı

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2003.10.003

Cited by 17 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the pre-implant visual-motor integration scores of the deaf children in this study were age-appropriate when compared with the normative data. This result contrasts with earlier reports showing delays in deaf children compared to hearing children (Erden, Otman & Tunay, 2004;Tiber, 1985). The differences may be due to several factors.…”

Section: Divergence Of Fine Vs Gross Motor Skillscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike the first study in which preimplant VMI scores were not significantly below normative data, the present results replicate earlier findings showing that visual-motor integration skills of deaf children are delayed compared to hearing children (Erden, Otman & Tunay, 2004;Tiber, 1985). When administered prior to implantation, it is possible that VMI and design copying tests are not sensitive enough to pick up differences between prelingually-deaf children and hearing peers.…”

Section: Divergence Of Fine Vs Gross Motor Skillssupporting

confidence: 62%

“…Several studies have reported that deaf children display atypical performance on visual-motor integration tasks as well as other perceptual-motor tasks involving balance, running, throwing, and figure drawing (Erden, Otman & Tunay, 2004;Savelsbergh, Netelenbos & Whiting, 1991;Wiegersma & Van der Velde, 1983). In fact, more than 50 years ago, Myklebust and Brutten (1953) carried out one of the earliest studies investigating the visual perception skills of deaf children.…”

Section: Divergence Of Fine Vs Gross Motor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants in Deaf Children

Pisoni¹,

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A large body of clinical research over the last decade demonstrates that cochlear implants work and provide significant speech and language benefits to profoundly deaf adults and prelingually deaf children. The most challenging research problem today is that cochlear implants do not work equally well for everyone who has a profound hearing loss and cochlear implants frequently do not provide much benefit at all under highly degraded listening conditions. Some individuals do extremely well on traditional audiologic outcome measures with their cochlear implants when tested under benign listening conditions in the clinic and research laboratory while others have much more difficulty. However, all patients with cochlear implants uniformly have difficulty in a number of challenging perceptual domains such as: listening in noise, talking on the telephone, localizing sounds, recognizing familiar voices and different dialects, identifying environmental sounds and listening to music. The enormous variability in outcome and benefit following implantation is not surprising because none of the current generation of cochlear implants successfully restores normal hearing or supports robust speech perception and spoken language processing across all of these difficult and highly variable listening conditions. The traditional outcome measures of audiologic benefit were never designed to assess, understand or explain individual differences in speech perception and spoken language processing. In this chapter, we summarize recent findings that suggest several promising new directions for understanding and explaining variability in outcome and benefit after implantation. These results have implications for the design of new cochlear implants as well as the development of radically new approaches to intervention, training and habilitation following implantation.

show abstract

Section: Divergence Of Fine Vs Gross Motor Skillscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Divergence Of Fine Vs Gross Motor Skillssupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Divergence Of Fine Vs Gross Motor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants in Deaf Children

Pisoni¹,

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Isto porque os estudos foram realizados com pressupostos teóricos e metodológicos tão diferentes que inviabilizam qualquer comparação. Os mesmos vão desde aqueles que não encontraram alterações sensoriais com o paradigma da detecção de sinais (Bross, 1979a(Bross, , 1979bBross & Sauerwein, 1980) e a FSC em adultos , até aqueles que encontraram melhoras (Bavelier & Neville, 2002;Bosworth & Dobkins, 1999Neville & Lawson, 1987;Proksch & Bavelier, 2002;Sladen, Tharpe, Ashmead, Grantham, & Chun, 2005) ou prejuízos em tarefas envolvendo atenção visual (Erden et al, 2004;Stivalet et al, 1998).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Pesquisas, comparando o desempenho de participantes ouvintes e surdos em tarefas visuais cognitivas, relatam um aumento da atenção no campo visual perifé-rico relacionado à privação auditiva (Bavelier, Dye, & Hauser, 2006;Bavelier & Neville, 2002;Bavelier et al, 2001;Bavelier et al, 2000;Bosworth & Dobkins, 2002;Neville & Lawson, 1987;Proksch & Bavelier, 2002). Enquanto outras, relacionando busca visual e atenção, mostram que os participantes surdos apresentam prejuízos no processamento visual comparados aos ouvintes (Erden, Otman, & Tunay, 2004;Stivalet, Moreno, Richard, Barraud, & Raphel, 1998). Já trabalhos que compararam o desempenho sensorial de crianças e adultos surdos e ouvintes, utilizando o paradigma da detecção de sinais (Bross, 1979a(Bross, , 1979bBross & Sauerwein, 1980), não encontraram alterações na resposta sensorial entre os participantes com e sem surdez.…”

unclassified

Sensibilidade ao contraste de crianças surdas e ouvintes para grades senoidais em condições mesópicas

Santos¹,

Mendes²,

Alves³

2009

Psicol. Reflex. Crit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoO objetivo deste trabalho foi comparar a sensibilidade ao contraste (FSC) de crianças surdas e crianças ouvintes para freqüências espaciais de 0,25 a 2,0 cpg (ciclos por grau de ângulo visual) em nível de luminância mesópica (0,7 cd/m 2 ), utilizando o método psicofísico da escolha forçada. Vinte crianças (7-12 anos) participaram desta pesquisa, dez com surdez pré-lingual e dez ouvintes. Todos os participantes apresentavam acuidade visual normal ou corrigida. A ANOVA mostrou diferença significante entre os grupos [F (1, 238) = 15,487; p < 0,001], porém a análise com o teste post-hoc Tukey HSD não revelou diferença significante na comparação freqüência a freqüência entre os dois grupos (p > 0,05). Os resultados sugerem alterações na FSC para estímulos de grade senoidal das crianças surdas em níveis de luminância mesópica. Palavras-chave: Percepção visual; Sensibilidade ao contraste; Freqüências espaciais; Crianças surdas; Método psicofísico. AbstractThe aim of this study was to compare the contrast sensitivity (CSF) of deaf children and hearing children to spatial frequency of 0.25 to 2.0 cpd (cycles per degree of visual angle) at mesopic luminance level (0.7 cd/ m 2 ), using the psychophysical forced-choice method. Twenty children (7-12 years old) participated in this research, ten with prelingual deafness and ten with normal hearing. All participants had normal or corrected visual acuity. The ANOVA showed significant difference between the two groups [F (1, 238) = 15.487; p < 0.001], but the post-hoc Tukey HSD test analysis did not reveal significant difference in frequency to frequency comparison between the two groups (p > 0.05). The results suggest alterations in CSF to sine-wave gratings stimuli of deaf children at mesopic luminance level. Keywords: Visual perception; Contrast sensitivity; Spatial frequency; Deaf children; Psychophysical method.Uma das teorias mais utilizadas nas últimas décadas para tentar explicar como o sistema visual humano (SVH) processa a forma dos objetos foi proposta originalmente por Campbell e Robson (1968). Esta teoria, que foi denominada de modelo de canais múltiplos, defende que o processamento visual acontece através de canais que respondem seletivamente para faixas ou bandas estreitas de freqüên-cias espaciais. A idéia é que um estímulo apresentado no campo visual não estimula todos os neurônios corticais que recebem informações daquela área da retina, mas apenas grupos de neurônios que respondem independente e seletivamente para cada um dos elementos que compõem o estímulo. Isto implica que padrões visuais diferentes são processados por subunidades ou grupos de neurônios diferentes, os quais formam as bases dos canais ou mecanismos seletivos para freqüências espaciais (Campbell & Robson, 1968;De Valois & De Valois, 1990).O modelo de canais múltiplos pressupõe que a função de sensibilidade ao contraste (FSC) representa o envelope de sensibilidade para a série total de canais, cada um sensível a uma faixa restrita e discreta do espectro de freqüência espacial. A FSC é a ...

show abstract

An external focus promotes motor learning of an aiming task in individuals with hearing impairments

Samadi,

Abedanzadeh,

Norouzi

et al. 2024

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that external relative to internal focus (IF) instructions may improve motor performance as well as cognitive function (e.g., attentional stability and task‐focus). The aim of the study was to examine the influence of attentional focus instructions on skill acquisition and learning of an aiming task in individuals with hearing impairments. The participants (N = 39, Mage = 17.87 ± 1.88 years) performed a bowling task with their dominant hand to knock down as many pins as possible. On day 1, they were randomly divided into three attentional focus groups; IF (focus on your throwing hand), external focus (EF) (focus on the pins), and control (no‐focus) instructions. Each participant performed 36 trials, divided into 3 blocks of 12 trials. Attentional focus instructions were given before each block, with a brief reminder provided after each 3 trials. On day 2, retention and transfer (further distance) tests were performed. Results showed that while there were no significant differences between groups in the pre‐test, the EF group outperformed both IF and control groups in retention and transfer tests. No significant difference was found between the control and IF. The findings suggest that the advantages of the external relative to the IF and no‐focus instructions may generalize to individuals with hearing impairments.

show abstract

Is visual perception of hearing-impaired children different from healthy children?

Cited by 17 publications

References 20 publications

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants in Deaf Children

Efficacy and Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants in Deaf Children

Sensibilidade ao contraste de crianças surdas e ouvintes para grades senoidais em condições mesópicas

An external focus promotes motor learning of an aiming task in individuals with hearing impairments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About