Elsevier

Brain and Cognition

Volume 82, Issue 1, June 2013, Pages 117-126
Brain and Cognition

Effects of attention and laterality on motion and orientation discrimination in deaf signers

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.01.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Previous studies have asked whether visual sensitivity and attentional processing in deaf signers are enhanced or altered as a result of their different sensory experiences during development, i.e., auditory deprivation and exposure to a visual language. In particular, deaf and hearing signers have been shown to exhibit a right visual field/left hemisphere advantage for motion processing, while hearing nonsigners do not. To examine whether this finding extends to other aspects of visual processing, we compared deaf signers and hearing nonsigners on motion, form, and brightness discrimination tasks. Secondly, to examine whether hemispheric lateralities are affected by attention, we employed a dual-task paradigm to measure form and motion thresholds under “full” vs. “poor” attention conditions. Deaf signers, but not hearing nonsigners, exhibited a right visual field advantage for motion processing. This effect was also seen for form processing and not for the brightness task. Moreover, no group differences were observed in attentional effects, and the motion and form visual field asymmetries were not modulated by attention, suggesting they occur at early levels of sensory processing. In sum, the results show that processing of motion and form, believed to be mediated by dorsal and ventral visual pathways, respectively, are left-hemisphere dominant in deaf signers.

Highlights

► Deaf signers have a right visual field advantage for motion and form processing. ► This suggest a left hemisphere dominance for motion and form in deaf signers. ► Visual functions important to language may be captured by the left hemisphere. ► Visual field lateralities are sensory because they were not affected by attention.

Introduction

Studies have shown that deaf individuals who use American Sign Language (ASL) have altered or enhanced attentional capacity and visual processing abilities, by virtue of their different auditory and visual sensory experiences during development. Generally, deaf individuals are believed to have enhanced visual detection of targets that move or appear in the parafovea or periphery (Bottari et al., 2010, Chen et al., 2006, Colmenero et al., 2000, Dye et al., 2009, Loke and Song, 1991, Neville and Lawson, 1987a, Neville and Lawson, 1987b, Reynolds, 1993). This advantage is believed to be stronger under conditions of attentional load, such as when targets in peripheral and central space compete for attention (Dye et al., 2009, Proksch and Bavelier, 2002). In studies using peripheral precues that direct spatial attention towards the location of the upcoming stimulus, deaf signers benefit less with a valid cue, compared to hearing signers and nonsigners (Bosworth & Dobkins, 2002a). When attention is diverted away from the target with an invalid cue, deaf signers’ performance was less hindered than hearing nonsigners (Parasnis & Samar, 1985). Together, these results are interpreted to mean that deaf people are able to orient covert attention more efficiently and faster to peripheral events, compared to hearing people (and see Stivalet, Moreno, Richard, Barraud, & Raphel, 1998 for a similar conclusion with a visual search task). These findings are complemented by brain imaging studies showing enhanced neural activity when deaf signers direct attention to peripheral, but not central, targets (ERP: Neville and Lawson, 1987a, Neville et al., 1983; fMRI: Bavelier et al., 2000). Moreover, superior attention to peripheral stimuli is reported in deaf native signers but not in hearing native signers (who have early ASL exposure from their deaf signing parents but normal hearing), indicating the effect is attributed to auditory deprivation and not sign language experience (Dye et al., 2009, Proksch and Bavelier, 2002). In fact, this peripheral attention advantage in deaf individuals may even make peripheral stimuli more distracting, which can hinder performance for irrelevant concurrent tasks (Dye, Hauser, & Bavelier, 2008a). One ecological explanation for these results is that, in the absence of informative auditory cues about changes in one’s extrapersonal space, deaf individuals need to rely upon visual cues, and as a result, this experience makes them more efficient at allocating attention to peripheral changes, compared to hearing individuals.

Other visual capacities such as visual shape memory (Cattani, Clibbens, & Perfect, 2007), face processing (Corina, 1989, McCullough and Emmorey, 2009, McCullough et al., 2005), and mental rotation (Emmorey & Kosslyn, 1996) are altered in deaf signers, and these effects are believed to be a result of early exposure to and daily use of a visual sign language. Most relevant to the current study, with respect to motion processing, several studies have reported a consistent right visual field advantage, suggesting a left hemisphere dominance, in deaf signers, while hearing nonsigners show either no asymmetry or a small right hemisphere advantage. This effect for motion processing has been shown using lateralized stimuli for a leftward vs. rightward direction-of-motion discrimination task (Bosworth and Dobkins, 1999, Bosworth and Dobkins, 2002b, Samar and Parasnis, 2005), an apparent motion task (Neville and Lawson, 1987a, Neville and Lawson, 1987b), and a speed discrimination task (Brozinsky & Bavelier, 2004). Hearing native signers also exhibit a similar right visual field advantage for motion processing as do deaf signers suggesting that the asymmetry is attributable to sign language experience, and not to deafness (Bavelier et al., 2001, Bosworth and Dobkins, 2002b, Neville and Lawson, 1987a, Neville and Lawson, 1987b). Supporting these behavioral results, deaf and hearing signers show greater brain activation in the left hemisphere while viewing moving stimuli compared to hearing nonsigners (ERP: Neville & Lawson, 1987a; fMRI: Bavelier et al., 2001).

The dominant hypothesis in the literature explaining the alteration of lateralization is that it reflects an adaptive developmental reorganization to meet the functional processing demands of sign language. That is, because ASL comprehension is highly dependent on the ability to process moving hands, then perhaps the left, language dominant hemisphere has usurped some visual functions, such as motion processing, needed for language processing (Neville & Bavelier, 2002). In addition to motion cues inherent in hand movements of ASL, other form cues – orientation, position, and configuration of the hands – are also important for sign language comprehension. The purpose of this study is to test this hypothesis by extending previous findings of motion processing asymmetries to other sensory dimensions believed to be relevant to sign language processing, specifically form processing. A critical implication of the hypothesis in the existing literature is that, in addition to motion cues, other sensory cues that are linguistically distinctive for sign language processing (such as form and orientation) should also become left lateralized, whereas sensory dimensions that are not linguistically distinctive for sign language processing (such as brightness) should not.

The first goal of the current study was to investigate left vs. right visual field laterality in deaf signers and hearing nonsigners for three different aspects of visual processing, which differ in the extent to which they provide important cues for sign language comprehension. First, we tested direction-of-motion discrimination, which allowed us to replicate the finding of left hemisphere dominance for motion processing in deaf signers and not in hearing nonsigners. As opposed to previous studies which used stimuli containing opposite directions of motion (Bosworth and Dobkins, 2002a, Bosworth and Dobkins, 2002b, Fine et al., 2005, Finney and Dobkins, 2001), in the current study subjects discriminated between small differences in the directional angle of motion. We reasoned that this might be closer to the types of finer discriminations signers make during sign language comprehension, since the differences across hand movements in sign language are often relatively subtle. Second, we tested orientation discrimination, with the prediction that because discrimination of finger and hand orientation is important for sign language comprehension, we might also find a left hemisphere dominance for this aspect of visual processing in deaf signers but not hearing nonsigners. We also used these motion and orientation tasks to ask, more generally, whether the deaf signers and hearing nonsigners differ in processing of stimuli/tasks that are thought to be mediated by the dorsal and ventral pathways. It is believed that the dorsal pathway supports spatial and motion processing and visuo-motor integration while the ventral pathway supports form processing and object recognition (see Desimone and Duncan, 1995, Milner and Goodale, 2008, Ungerleider and Pasternak, 2004 for reviews). It has been previously suggested that the dorsal pathway may be more greatly affected by deafness (Bavelier et al., 2006, Samar and Parasnis, 2005, Stevens and Neville, 2006). One recent study compared brain activation in hearing nonsigners, deaf signers, and hearing signers while they performed a spatial matching task that activated the dorsal pathway and an object-matching task that activated the ventral pathway (Weisberg, Koo, Crain, & Eden, 2012). They confirmed differential effects of both deafness and sign language on each pathway. Finally, as a control, we tested brightness discrimination, with the prediction that since brightness is not important for sign language comprehension, our deaf signers and hearing nonsigners should not show differences in laterality.

A second goal of the current study was to investigate effects of attention on visual performance, which we addressed by measuring performance under full vs. poor attention conditions. This attentional manipulation allowed us to ask two main questions. One, we asked whether any observed left vs. right laterality effects were dependent upon the amount of attention devoted to the stimulus/task. Two, we asked whether effects of attention for central vs. peripheral visual fields differed for deaf vs. hearing subjects, motivated by previous reports that attention effects in deaf individuals are greater in the peripheral than in central visual field (Bavelier et al., 2000, Dye et al., 2009, Neville and Lawson, 1987a, Neville et al., 1983, Proksch and Bavelier, 2002). To manipulate attention, we used a dual-task paradigm, i.e., obtaining visual thresholds for the main task (motion, form, or brightness) under conditions of full attention (main task alone) vs. poor attention (main task with a concurrent foveal task). We and others have previously observed elevated thresholds under poor attention conditions using the dual-task paradigm (Bonnel and Miller, 1994, Bonnel et al., 1987, Bosworth et al., 2012, Braun, 1994, Braun and Sagi, 1990, Braun and Sagi, 1991, Huang and Dobkins, 2005, Lee et al., 1997, Lee et al., 1999, Sperling and Melchner, 1978). The intention of the poor attention condition was to require subjects to maintain endogenous spatial attention at fixation, providing less attention for the main task. Here, we reasoned that if deaf subjects have enhanced attention (i.e., better at shifting or distributing attention amongst multiple tasks), then they would be less impaired by the poor attention condition, compared to hearing subjects, and this effect could differ for left vs. right visual fields, and/or for central vs. peripheral visual fields.

Section snippets

Subjects

Subjects included 15 hearing (6 males, average age = 22.0 ± 1.0 years) and 9 deaf (3 males, average age = 26.0 ± 1.9 years) adults. Deaf subjects had uncorrected hearing loss greater than 80 Decibels in both ears. Based on self-report, all participants were deaf from birth, with the exception of one who lost hearing at 15 months of age due to uncertain etiology. Two indicated the cause was congenital rubella, all others indicated unknown or genetic causes. Only two had deaf parents or older deaf siblings.

Central visual field (CVF) performance

Thresholds for each group are presented in Table 1. A three-factor ANOVA was performed with task (motion vs. orientation) × attention (full vs. poor) × subject group (deaf vs. hearing) as factors. As expected, performance was significantly better for the full than poor attention condition (F(1,23) = 39.32; p < 0.001). This verifies that the dual-task manipulation succeeded in reducing attentional resources devoted to the main task. There was no main effect of subject group (F(1,23) = 0.05; p = 0.82) nor an

Discussion

The primary aim of the current study was to compare visual field asymmetries in deaf signers and hearing nonsigners for motion and form tasks, which are mediated by the dorsal and ventral pathways, respectively. Previous studies have reported a right visual field advantage (i.e., a left hemisphere advantage) for motion processing, which has led to the hypothesis that the left hemisphere “captures” visual processing abilities necessary for language acquisition. Here we tested this language

Acknowledgments

This was funded by the NSF Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning at Gallaudet University (NSF-1041725) to R.G.B. and a National Science Foundation Grant (BCS-0241557) awarded to K.R.D.

References (80)

  • K. Emmorey et al.

    Enhanced image generation abilities in deaf signers: A right hemisphere effect

    Brain and Cognition

    (1996)
  • K. Emmorey et al.

    The bimodal bilingual brain: Effects of sign language experience

    Brain and Language

    (2009)
  • E.M. Finney et al.

    Visual contrast sensitivity in deaf versus hearing populations: Exploring the perceptual consequences of auditory deprivation and experience with a visual language

    Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research

    (2001)
  • C.J. Gibson et al.

    Cerebral laterality in deaf and hearing children

    Brain and Language

    (1984)
  • G. Grossi et al.

    Hemispheric specialization for sign language

    Neuropsychologia

    (1996)
  • P.C. Hauser et al.

    Deafness and visual enumeration: Not all aspects of attention are modified by deafness

    Brain Research

    (2007)
  • L. Huang et al.

    Attentional effects on contrast discrimination in humans: Evidence for both contrast gain and response gain

    Vision Research

    (2005)
  • D.K. Lee et al.

    Spatial vision thresholds in the near absence of attention

    Vision Research

    (1997)
  • A.C. Marcotte et al.

    Cerebral lateralization for speech in deaf and normal children

    Brain and Language

    (1985)
  • A.C. Marcotte et al.

    The effects of linguistic experience on cerebral lateralization for speech production in normal hearing and deaf adolescents

    Brain and Language

    (1987)
  • S. McCullough et al.

    Categorical perception of affective and linguistic facial expressions

    Cognition

    (2009)
  • S. McCullough et al.

    Neural organization for recognition of grammatical and emotional facial expressions in deaf ASL signers and hearing nonsigners

    Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research

    (2005)
  • A.D. Milner et al.

    Two visual systems re-viewed

    Neuropsychologia

    (2008)
  • H. Neville et al.

    Human brain plasticity: Evidence from sensory deprivation and altered language experience

    Progress in Brain Research

    (2002)
  • H.J. Neville et al.

    Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study. II. Congenitally deaf adults

    Brain Research

    (1987)
  • H.J. Neville et al.

    Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task. III. Separate effects of auditory deprivation and acquisition of a visual language

    Brain Research

    (1987)
  • H.J. Neville et al.

    Altered visual-evoked potentials in congenitally deaf adults

    Brain Research

    (1983)
  • I. Parasnis et al.

    Parafoveal attention in congenitally deaf and hearing young adults

    Brain and Cognition

    (1985)
  • H. Poizner et al.

    Temporal processing in deaf signers

    Brain and Language

    (1987)
  • V.J. Samar et al.

    Dorsal stream deficits suggest hidden dyslexia among deaf poor readers: Correlated evidence from reduced perceptual speed and elevated coherent motion detection thresholds

    Brain and Cognition

    (2005)
  • V.J. Samar et al.

    Non-verbal IQ is correlated with visual field advantages for short duration coherent motion detection in deaf signers with varied ASL exposure and etiologies of deafness

    Brain and Cognition

    (2007)
  • P. Stivalet et al.

    Differences in visual search tasks between congenitally deaf and normally hearing adults

    Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research

    (1998)
  • A.M. Treisman et al.

    A feature-integration theory of attention

    Cognitive Psychology

    (1980)
  • A.B. Watson

    Probability summation over time

    Vision Research

    (1979)
  • J. Weisberg et al.

    Cortical plasticity for visuospatial processing and object recognition in deaf and hearing signers

    Neuroimage

    (2012)
  • J.M. Wolfe

    Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli

    Vision research

    (1994)
  • R. Ashton et al.

    Cerebral laterality in deaf and hearing children

    Developmental Psychology

    (1982)
  • D. Bavelier et al.

    Impact of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral organization for motion processing

    Journal of Neuroscience

    (2001)
  • D. Bavelier et al.

    Visual attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals

    Journal of Neuroscience

    (2000)
  • J. Bettger et al.

    Enhanced facial discrimination: Effects of experience with American sign language

    Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education

    (1997)
  • Cited by (20)

    • Sign language experience redistributes attentional resources to the inferior visual field

      2019, Cognition
      Citation Excerpt :

      If SL experience redistributes visual attention toward the inferior VF, both deaf and hearing signers should exhibit enhanced inferior VF processing during visual search, compared to hearing non-signer controls. While past research has suggested a “language capture hypothesis” stemming from left versus right VF differences as a result of SL use (Bosworth, Petrich, & Dobkins, 2013; Neville & Bavelier, 2002), here our interest is in the processing demands of language and how these may influence the way in which we attend to the world around us when performing non-linguistic tasks. Furthermore, we model the psychological processes underlying the observed RT distributions using a recent hierarchical Bayesian approach to estimate drift diffusion model parameters.

    • Visual and linguistic components of short-term memory: Generalized Neural Model (GNM) for spoken and sign languages

      2019, Cortex
      Citation Excerpt :

      Gozzi et al. (2011) also showed that when challenged with above-capacity task (WM span +1) on serial recall tests, signers and speakers make both item errors and order errors at the same rate. Supporting this line of reasoning, Boutla et al. (2004) has shown that the increased number (up to 7 items) retained in non-signers' phonological loop is only present in serial recall, and thus would appear to be the result of a unidirectional, serial encoding strategy. Notably, when the option of a phonological loop-based rehearsal strategy is not available to speakers in experimental settings (as in the Kanji articulatory suppression task), performance on working memory tasks with serial recall becomes on par with that of signers, that is, speakers lose the advantage they have compared to signers.

    • Multisensory Perception and the Coding of Space

      2017, Neuropsychology of Space: Spatial Functions of the Human Brain
    • Reorganization of neural systems mediating peripheral visual selective attention in the deaf: An optical imaging study

      2017, Hearing Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the current study we focus on the possibility that recruitment of brain areas, typically used by hearing individuals to process auditory information, might be correlated in deaf individuals with an advantage during the performance of a visual task. Many studies have reported enhanced visual task performance in deaf individuals, with the majority of these studies employing either attention-demanding tasks in which stimuli are presented in the visual periphery (Buckley et al., 2010; Codina et al., 2011; Dye et al., 2009; Proksch and Bavelier, 2002; Stevens and Neville, 2006) or tasks that involve processing of visual motion in the periphery (Armstrong et al., 2002; Bosworth & Dobkins, 2002ab; Bosworth et al., 2013; Hauthal et al., 2013). This suggests that this experience-dependent processing advantage only occurs for certain specialized tasks.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text