↓ Skip to main content

How does visual language affect crossmodal plasticity and cochlear implant success?

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How does visual language affect crossmodal plasticity and cochlear implant success?
Published in
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.08.011
Pubmed ID
Authors

C.R. Lyness, B. Woll, R. Campbell, V. Cardin

Abstract

Cochlear implants (CI) are the most successful intervention for ameliorating hearing loss in severely or profoundly deaf children. Despite this, educational performance in children with CI continues to lag behind their hearing peers. From animal models and human neuroimaging studies it has been proposed the integrative functions of auditory cortex are compromised by crossmodal plasticity. This has been argued to result partly from the use of a visual language. Here we argue that 'cochlear implant sensitive periods' comprise both auditory and language sensitive periods, and thus cannot be fully described with animal models. Despite prevailing assumptions, there is no evidence to link the use of a visual language to poorer CI outcome. Crossmodal reorganisation of auditory cortex occurs regardless of compensatory strategies, such as sign language, used by the deaf person. In contrast, language deprivation during early sensitive periods has been repeatedly linked to poor language outcomes. Language sensitive periods have largely been ignored when considering variation in CI outcome, leading to ill-founded recommendations concerning visual language in CI habilitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Netherlands 4 2%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 231 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 20%
Student > Master 45 18%
Researcher 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 48 19%
Unknown 30 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 14%
Neuroscience 34 14%
Linguistics 29 12%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Other 46 19%
Unknown 41 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,332,646
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
#572
of 4,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,472
of 211,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
#8
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 211,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.