Display options
Cite
Samar VJ, Berger L. Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?. Front Psychol. 2017;8:713doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00713.
Samar, V. J., & Berger, L. (2017). Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?. Frontiers in psychology, 8713. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00713
Samar, Vincent J, and Berger, Lauren. "Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?." Frontiers in psychology vol. 8 (2017): 713. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00713
Samar VJ, Berger L. Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?. Front Psychol. 2017 May 16;8:713. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00713. eCollection 2017. PMID: 28559861; PMCID: PMC5433326.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Psychol. 2017 May 16;8:713. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00713. eCollection 2017.

Does a Flatter General Gradient of Visual Attention Explain Peripheral Advantages and Central Deficits in Deaf Adults?.

Frontiers in psychology

Vincent J Samar, Lauren Berger

Affiliations

  1. NTID Department of Liberal Studies, Rochester Institute of Technology, RochesterNY, USA.
  2. PhD Program in Educational Neuroscience, Gallaudet University, WashingtonDC, USA.

PMID: 28559861 PMCID: PMC5433326 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00713

Abstract

Individuals deaf from early age often outperform hearing individuals in the visual periphery on attention-dependent dorsal stream tasks (e.g., spatial localization or movement detection), but sometimes show central visual attention deficits, usually on ventral stream object identification tasks. It has been proposed that early deafness adaptively redirects attentional resources from central to peripheral vision to monitor extrapersonal space in the absence of auditory cues, producing a more evenly distributed attention gradient across visual space. However, little direct evidence exists that peripheral advantages are functionally tied to central deficits, rather than determined by independent mechanisms, and previous studies using several attention tasks typically report peripheral advantages or central deficits, not both. To test the general altered attentional gradient proposal, we employed a novel divided attention paradigm that measured target localization performance along a gradient from parafoveal to peripheral locations, independent of concurrent central object identification performance in prelingually deaf and hearing groups who differed in access to auditory input. Deaf participants without cochlear implants (No-CI), with cochlear implants (CI), and hearing participants identified vehicles presented centrally, and concurrently reported the location of parafoveal (1.4°) and peripheral (13.3°) targets among distractors. No-CI participants but not CI participants showed a central identification accuracy deficit. However, all groups displayed equivalent target localization accuracy at peripheral and parafoveal locations and nearly parallel parafoveal-peripheral gradients. Furthermore, the No-CI group's central identification deficit remained after statistically controlling peripheral performance; conversely, the parafoveal and peripheral group performance equivalencies remained after controlling central identification accuracy. These results suggest that, in the absence of auditory input, reduced central attentional capacity is not necessarily associated with enhanced peripheral attentional capacity or with flattening of a general attention gradient. Our findings converge with earlier studies suggesting that a general graded trade-off of attentional resources across the visual field does not adequately explain the complex task-dependent spatial distribution of deaf-hearing performance differences reported in the literature. Rather, growing evidence suggests that the spatial distribution of attention-mediated performance in deaf people is determined by sophisticated cross-modal plasticity mechanisms that recruit specific sensory and polymodal cortex to achieve specific compensatory processing goals.

Keywords: attention; central deficit; cochlear implant; cross-modal plasticity; deafness; peripheral advantage

References

  1. Brain Cogn. 1985 Jul;4(3):313-27 - PubMed
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Nov;10(11):512-8 - PubMed
  3. Brain Cogn. 2013 Jun;82(1):117-26 - PubMed
  4. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2013 Summer;18(3):344-59 - PubMed
  5. Brain Topogr. 2012 Jul;25(3):272-84 - PubMed
  6. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002 Jul 1;14(5):687-701 - PubMed
  7. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;14(9):400-10 - PubMed
  8. Neural Plast. 2012;2012:197264 - PubMed
  9. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Mar;11(1):171-83 - PubMed
  10. Front Psychol. 2013 Feb 04;4:33 - PubMed
  11. Dev Psychol. 1998 Sep;34(5):840-50 - PubMed
  12. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Sep;21(1):1-10 - PubMed
  13. Exp Brain Res. 1979;37(3):475-94 - PubMed
  14. Nat Neurosci. 2010 Nov;13(11):1421-7 - PubMed
  15. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003 Oct;46(5):1166-83 - PubMed
  16. Neuropsychologia. 2016 Nov;92 :69-78 - PubMed
  17. J Neurosci. 2012 Jul 11;32(28):9626-38 - PubMed
  18. Neuroimage. 2012 Mar;60(1):661-72 - PubMed
  19. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Dec;48(6):1529-37 - PubMed
  20. J Neurosci. 2000 Sep 1;20(17):RC93 - PubMed
  21. Psychol Rev. 1990 Oct;97(4):523-47 - PubMed
  22. Brain Res. 1987 Mar 10;405(2):268-83 - PubMed
  23. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2013 Feb 13;:null - PubMed
  24. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002 Apr;45(2):403-13 - PubMed
  25. Percept Psychophys. 1999 Jul;61(5):837-59 - PubMed
  26. PLoS One. 2016 Feb 05;11(2):e0148466 - PubMed
  27. PLoS One. 2009 May 20;4(5):e5640 - PubMed
  28. Ear Hear. 2005 Aug;26(4):389-408 - PubMed
  29. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016 Apr;21(2):122-8 - PubMed
  30. Brain Cogn. 2002 Jun;49(1):170-81 - PubMed
  31. Phys Life Rev. 2010 Sep;7(3):269-84 - PubMed
  32. Front Aging Neurosci. 2014 Jan 16;5:101 - PubMed
  33. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Feb;13(2):65-73 - PubMed
  34. Hear Res. 2014 Mar;309:94-102 - PubMed
  35. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Mar;10(1):210-9 - PubMed
  36. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1994 Apr;4(2):157-65 - PubMed
  37. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Jun;3(6):443-52 - PubMed
  38. Optom Vis Sci. 2005 Aug;82(8):724-31 - PubMed
  39. Vision Res. 2012 Sep 15;69:10-22 - PubMed
  40. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37527 - PubMed
  41. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 28;9(2):e90498 - PubMed
  42. Optom Vis Sci. 1994 Dec;71(12):736-42 - PubMed

Publication Types