Signal Detection Analysis of Visual Flicker in Deaf and Hearing Individuals

Bross, Michael; Sauerwein, Hannelore C.

doi:10.2466/pms.1980.51.3.839

Cited by 44 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The significant decrease to RNFL thickness in deaf adults occurred in temporal retina in a region containing the papillomacular bundle which supplies the fovea. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between the visual acuities of deaf and hearing and several studies have failed to find a difference in central visual abilities between deaf and hearing individuals [1], [41]–[43]. However, the increased density of RGCs at the fovea and macula in healthy human retina suggests the presence of a RGC reserve or redundancy such that structural damage to the optic nerve secondary to glaucoma may precede any damage to visual function [39].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Advantage in Deaf Adults Linked to Retinal Changes

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The altered sensory experience of profound early onset deafness provokes sometimes large scale neural reorganisations. In particular, auditory-visual cross-modal plasticity occurs, wherein redundant auditory cortex becomes recruited to vision. However, the effect of human deafness on neural structures involved in visual processing prior to the visual cortex has never been investigated, either in humans or animals. We investigated neural changes at the retina and optic nerve head in profoundly deaf (N = 14) and hearing (N = 15) adults using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), an in-vivo light interference method of quantifying retinal micro-structure. We compared retinal changes with behavioural results from the same deaf and hearing adults, measuring sensitivity in the peripheral visual field using Goldmann perimetry. Deaf adults had significantly larger neural rim areas, within the optic nerve head in comparison to hearing controls suggesting greater retinal ganglion cell number. Deaf adults also demonstrated significantly larger visual field areas (indicating greater peripheral sensitivity) than controls. Furthermore, neural rim area was significantly correlated with visual field area in both deaf and hearing adults. Deaf adults also showed a significantly different pattern of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) distribution compared to controls. Significant correlations between the depth of the RNFL at the inferior-nasal peripapillary retina and the corresponding far temporal and superior temporal visual field areas (sensitivity) were found. Our results show that cross-modal plasticity after early onset deafness may not be limited to the sensory cortices, noting specific retinal adaptations in early onset deaf adults which are significantly correlated with peripheral vision sensitivity.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Advantage in Deaf Adults Linked to Retinal Changes

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, visual contrast sensitivity has recently been shown to be equivalent between deaf and hearing individuals (Finney & Dobkins, 2001). Temporal processing also appears comparable in these two populations as tested by temporal discrimination thresholds (Mills, 1985) and temporal resolution (Poizner & Tallal, 1987;Bross & Sauerwein, 1980). Finally, although discrimination thresholds for motion direction have revealed a lateralization difference between deaf signers and hearing controls, no overall enhancement of the sensitivity of motion processing has been observed in the deaf (Bosworth & Dobkins, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Changes in the Spatial Distribution of Visual Attention after Early Deafness

Proksch

Bavelier

2002

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

252

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is much anecdotal suggestion of improved visual skills in congenitally deaf individuals. However, this claim has only been met by mixed results from careful investigations of visual skills in deaf individuals. Psychophysical assessments of visual functions have failed, for the most part, to validate the view of enhanced visual skills after deafness. Only a few studies have shown an advantage for deaf individuals in visual tasks. Interestingly, all of these studies share the requirement that participants process visual information in their peripheral visual field under demanding conditions of attention. This work has led us to propose that congenital auditory deprivation alters the gradient of visual attention from central to peripheral field by enhancing peripheral processing. This hypothesis was tested by adapting a search task from Lavie and colleagues in which the interference from distracting information on the search task provides a measure of attentional resources. These authors have established that during an easy central search for a target, any surplus attention remaining will involuntarily process a peripheral distractor that the subject has been instructed to ignore. Attentional resources can be measured by adjusting the difficulty of the search task to the point at which no surplus resources are available for the distractor. Through modification of this paradigm, central and peripheral attentional resources were compared in deaf and hearing individuals. Deaf individuals possessed greater attentional resources in the periphery but less in the center when compared to hearing individuals. Furthermore, based on results from native hearing signers, it was shown that sign language alone could not be responsible for these changes. We conclude that auditory deprivation from birth leads to compensatory changes within the visual system that enhance attentional processing of the peripheral visual field.

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

“…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. Em termos gerais, há pelo menos duas hipóteses: a primeira defende que apenas alguns aspectos da visão são modificados em função da surdez (Bavelier et al, 2006) e a segunda defende que as contradições entre os estudos estão relacionadas às diferentes metodologias e critérios de amostragem das pesquisas (Bavelier et al, 2006;Rettenbach, Diller, & Sireteanu, 1999;Stevens & Neville, 2006).…”

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

Signal Detection Analysis of Visual Flicker in Deaf and Hearing Individuals

Cited by 44 publications

References 7 publications

Visual Advantage in Deaf Adults Linked to Retinal Changes

Visual Advantage in Deaf Adults Linked to Retinal Changes

Changes in the Spatial Distribution of Visual Attention after Early Deafness

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About