The Influence of Binocular Visual Deprivation on the Development of Visual-Spatial Attention

Goldberg, Melissa C.; Maurer, Daphne; Lewis, Terri L.; Brent, Henry P.

doi:10.1207/s15326942dn1901_5

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, complete development of the neurocortical architecture of the visual system crucially depends on the onset and type of visual stimulation experienced during early life. Visual deprivation in early childhood profoundly alters lifelong visual abilities in animals (Wiesel, 1982) and humans (Goldberg, Maurer, Lewis, & Brent, 2001). Our findings suggest that the human language system may develop in much the same fashion, as first proposed by Snow (1987).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does age constrain the outcome of all language acquisition equally regardless of whether the language is a first or second one? To test this hypothesis, the English grammatical abilities of deaf and hearing adults who either did or did not have linguistic experience (spoken or signed) during early childhood were investigated with two tasks, timed grammatical judgement and untimed sentence to picture matching. Findings showed that adults who acquired a language in early life performed at near-native levels on a second language regardless of whether they were hearing or deaf or whether the early language was spoken or signed. By contrast, deaf adults who experienced little or no accessible language in early life performed poorly. These results indicate that the onset of language acquisition in early human development dramatically alters the capacity to learn language throughout life, independent of the sensory-motor form of the early experience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Critically, however, some of the participants in these studies had substantially longer periods of visual deprivation (some of them beyond infancy; from 1.5 to 3 years) than the children we tested. However, other studies have shown that shorter periods of visual deprivation (less than 6 months of age) are enough to prevent normal development of visual functions, such as holistic face processing (Grand, Mondloch, Maurer, Brent, & Columbia, ), visual acuity (Gelbart, Hoyt, Jastrebski, & Marg, ), and visual–spatial attention (Goldberg, Maurer, Lewis, & Brent, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Sensitive Period for Tactile Remapping Does Not Include Early Infancy

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual input during development seems crucial in tactile spatial perception, given that late, but not congenitally, blind people are impaired when skin-based and tactile external representations are in conflict (when crossing the limbs). To test whether there is a sensitive period during which visual input is necessary, 14 children (age = 7.95) and a teenager (LM; age = 17.38) deprived of early vision by cataracts, and whose sight was restored during the first 5 months and at age 7, respectively, were tested. Tactile localization with arms crossed and uncrossed was measured. Children showed a crossing effect indistinguishable from a control group (Ns = 28, age = 8.24), whereas LM showed no crossing effect (Ns controls = 14, age = 20.78). This demonstrates a sensitive period which, critically, does not include early infancy.

show abstract

“…Because shifts of attention are influenced by SOA in adults (Shulman et al, 1979;Remington & Pierce, 1984;Shepherd & MuÈ ller, 1989;Sorensen et al, 1994) and, at least under some conditions, in children (Pearson & Lane, 1990;Brodeur, 1993;Wainwright-Sharp, 1995), we tested at three different SOAs: 100, 400 and 800 ms. We included a 100 ms SOA because in a previous study using the same procedure we found that it is a relatively short SOA at which adults usually show a small validity effect, a 400 ms SOA because it is the SOA at which adults showed a large validity effect, and an 800 ms SOA because it is when the validity effect declined in adults (Goldberg, Maurer & Lewis, 1996;Goldberg, 1998). To keep the predictive validity of the cue constant across SOAs (see Introduction), the three SOAs were tested in separate blocks of trials.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We began by testing 10-year-olds and adults, with the intention of testing younger subjects if 10-year-olds proved to be adult-like. In order to obtain as much data as possible in each condition, we restricted testing to a 400 ms SOA, the SOA at which previous studies have shown the largest validity effect in adults with endogenous cues (MuÈ ller & Findlay, 1988;Goldberg et al, 1996;Goldberg, 1998).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental changes in attention: the effects of endogenous cueing and of distractors

Goldberg

Maurer

Lewis

2001

Developmental Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used two reaction time tasks to examine age differences in the ability to use an endogenous cue to shift attention covertly and to ignore distractors. In Experiment 1, 8-year-olds, 10-year-olds and adults (n = 24 per age) were asked to push a button as soon as they detected a target that was presented in a cued, miscued or non-cued peripheral location at 100, 400 or 800 ms after the appearance of a central cue. In Experiment 2, 10-year-olds and adults (n = 24 per age) were asked to indicate which of two shapes appeared in the periphery 400 ms after a central cue, with those shapes surrounded by compatible or incompatible distractors. Unlike previous studies, the data were corrected for a reaction time bias that can inflate the apparent effect of cueing. Children were slower and more variable than adults overall. However, there were no age differences in the effects of the cues in either experiment: at all ages, the speed of responding was increased similarly by correct cueing and slowed similarly by incorrect cueing. Thus, under these conditions, the ability to use endogenous cues to orient covertly to the periphery is already adult-like by 8± 10 years of age, although there may be subsequent changes in the consistency of responding. In Experiment 2, 10-year-olds were slowed more than adults by incompatible distractors. Thus, the ability to ignore distracting information is not adult-like even by 10 years of age. The findings suggest different rates of development for the ability to shift attention following an endogenous cue and for the ability to filter out irrelevant information.

show abstract

The Influence of Binocular Visual Deprivation on the Development of Visual-Spatial Attention

Cited by 13 publications

References 72 publications

Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis

Age constraints on first versus second language acquisition: Evidence for linguistic plasticity and epigenesis

The Sensitive Period for Tactile Remapping Does Not Include Early Infancy

Developmental changes in attention: the effects of endogenous cueing and of distractors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About