Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 234, Issue 4, pp 1067–1076 | Cite as

Response bias reveals enhanced attention to inferior visual field in signers of American Sign Language

  • Matthew W. G. Dye
  • Jenessa L. Seymour
  • Peter C. Hauser
Research Article

Abstract

Deafness results in cross-modal plasticity, whereby visual functions are altered as a consequence of a lack of hearing. Here, we present a reanalysis of data originally reported by Dye et al. (PLoS One 4(5):e5640, 2009) with the aim of testing additional hypotheses concerning the spatial redistribution of visual attention due to deafness and the use of a visuogestural language (American Sign Language). By looking at the spatial distribution of errors made by deaf and hearing participants performing a visuospatial selective attention task, we sought to determine whether there was evidence for (1) a shift in the hemispheric lateralization of visual selective function as a result of deafness, and (2) a shift toward attending to the inferior visual field in users of a signed language. While no evidence was found for or against a shift in lateralization of visual selective attention as a result of deafness, a shift in the allocation of attention from the superior toward the inferior visual field was inferred in native signers of American Sign Language, possibly reflecting an adaptation to the perceptual demands imposed by a visuogestural language.

Keywords

Deafness Visual selective attention Visual hemifield  Hemispheric lateralization Sign language 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Dara Baril, Wyatte Hall, Danielle (Hagemann) Lynch, and Kim Scanlon for assistance with data collection. Many thanks also to the insightful and constructive comments from our reviewers. This research was supported by the National Institutes for Health (NIDCD R01 DC004418) and the National Science Foundation (SBE 0541953).

References

  1. Agrafiotis D, Canagarajah N, Bull DR, Dye M (2003) Perceptually optimised sign language video coding based on eye tracking analysis. Electron Lett 39:1703–1705. doi: 10.1049/el:20031140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrafiotis D, Canagarajah N, Bull DR, Kyle J, Seers H, Dye M (2006) A perceptually optimised video coding system for sign language communication at low bit rates. Signal Process Image 21:531–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball K, Owsley C (1993) The useful field of view test: a new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. J Am Optom Assoc 64(1):71–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball K, Beard BL, Roenker DL, Miller RL, Griggs DS (1988) Age and visual search: expanding the useful field of view. J Opt Soc Am A: 5:2210–2219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bavelier D, Brozinsky C, Tomann A, Mitchell T, Neville H, Liu G (2001) Impact of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral organization for motion processing. J Neurosci 21:8931–8942PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bavelier D, Dye MWG, Hauser PC (2006) Do deaf individuals see better? Trends Cogn Sci 10:512–518. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.09.006 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosworth R, Dobkins KR (1999) Left-hemisphere dominance for motion processing in deaf signers. Psychol Sci 10:256–262. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bosworth R, Dobkins KR (2002) Visual field asymmetries for motion processing in deaf and hearing signers. Brain Cogn 49:170–181. doi: 10.1006/brcg.2001.1498 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cattaneo Z, Lega C, Cecchetto C, Papagno C (2014) Auditory deprivation affects biases of visuospatial attention as measured by line bisection. Exp Brain Res 232:2767–2773. doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-3960-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dye MWG, Bavelier D (2013) Visual attention in deaf humans: a neuroplasticity perspective. In: Kral A, Fay RR, Popper AN (eds) Springer handbook of auditory research: Deafness. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dye MWG, Baril D, Bavelier D (2007) Which aspects of visual attention are changed by deafness? The case of the attentional network test. Neuropsychologia 45:1801–1811. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.019 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Dye MWG, Hauser PC, Bavelier D (2009) Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? The case of the Useful Field of View. PLoS One 4(5):e5640. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005640 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards JD, Vance DE, Wadley VG, Cissell M, Roenker D, Ball K (2005) The reliability and validity of useful field of view test scores for older adults. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 27(5):529–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Emmorey K, Thompson R, Colvin R (2009) Eye gaze during comprehension of American Sign Language by native and beginning signers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 14:237–243. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enn037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng J, Spence I (2014) Upper visual field advantage in localizing a target among distractors. i-Perception 5:97–100. doi: 10.1068/i0625rep CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Frasnelli J, Collignon O, Voss P, Lepore F (2011) Crossmodal plasticity in sensory loss. Prog Brain Res 191:233–249. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53752-2.00002-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Frishberg N (1975) Arbitrariness and iconicity: historical change in ASL. Language 51:696–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavie N (1995) Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perform 21:451–468. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.3.451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Letourneau SM, Mitchell TV (2011) Gaze patterns during identity and emotion judgments in hearing adults and deaf users of American Sign Language. Perception 40:563–575CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Levitt H (1970) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49(2):467–477Google Scholar
  21. Loke WH, Song S (1991) Central and peripheral visual processing in hearing and nonhearing individuals. Bull Psychon Soc 29:437–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merabet LB, Pascual-Leone A (2010) Neural reorganization following sensory loss: the opportunity of change. Nat Rev Neurosci 11:44–52. doi: 10.1038/nrn2758 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitchell TV, Letourneau SM, Maslin MCT (2013) Behavioral and neural evidence of increased attention to the bottom half of the face in deaf signers. Restor Neurol Neurosci 31:125–139PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Muir LJ, Richardson IEG (2005) Perception of sign language and its application to visual communications for deaf people. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 10:390–401. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Paludneviciene R, Hauser PC, Daggett D, Kurz KB (2012) Issues and trends in sign language assessment. In: Morere D, Allen T (eds) Measuring literacy and its neurocognitive predictors among deaf individuals: an assessment toolkit. Springer, New York NYGoogle Scholar
  26. Pavani F, Bottari D (2012) Visual abilities in individuals with profound deafness: a critical review. In: Murray MM, Wallace MT (eds) The neural bases of multisensory processes. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  27. Proksch J, Bavelier D (2002) Changes in the spatial distribution of visual attention after early deafness. J Cogn Neurosci 14:687–701. doi: 10.1162/08989290260138591 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Siple P (1978) Visual constraints for sign language communication. Sign Lang Stud 19:95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sladen DP, Tharpe AM, Ashmead DH, Grantham DW, Chun MM (2005) Visual attention in deaf and normal hearing adults: effects of stimulus compatibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 48:1529–1537. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/106) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wetherill GB, Levitt H (1965) Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol 18:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew W. G. Dye
    • 1
  • Jenessa L. Seymour
    • 2
  • Peter C. Hauser
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Liberal Studies, National Technical Institute for the DeafRochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Neuroscience ProgramUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  3. 3.Department of American Sign Language and Interpreter Education, National Technical Institute for the DeafRochester Institute of TechnologyRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations