↓ Skip to main content

Differential activity in Heschl's gyrus between deaf and hearing individuals is due to auditory deprivation rather than language modality

Overview of attention for article published in NeuroImage, September 2015
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Differential activity in Heschl's gyrus between deaf and hearing individuals is due to auditory deprivation rather than language modality
Published in
NeuroImage, September 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Velia Cardin, Rebecca C. Smittenaar, Eleni Orfanidou, Jerker Rönnberg, Cheryl M. Capek, Mary Rudner, Bencie Woll

Abstract

Sensory cortices undergo crossmodal reorganisation as a consequence of sensory deprivation. Congenital deafness in humans represents a particular case with respect to other types of sensory deprivation, because cortical reorganisation is not only a consequence of auditory deprivation, but also of language-driven mechanisms. Visual crossmodal plasticity has been found in secondary auditory cortices of deaf individuals, but it is still unclear if reorganisation also takes place in primary auditory areas, and how this relates to language modality and auditory deprivation. Here, we dissociated the effects of language modality and auditory deprivation on crossmodal plasticity in Heschl's gyrus as a whole, and in cytoarchitectonic region Te1.0 (likely to contain the core auditory cortex). Using fMRI, we measured the BOLD response to viewing sign language in congenitally or early deaf individuals with and without sign language knowledge, and in hearing controls. Results show differences between hearing and deaf individuals are due to a reduction in activation caused by visual stimulation in the hearing group, which is more significant in Te1.0 than in Heschl's gyrus as a whole. Furthermore, differences between deaf and hearing groups are due to auditory deprivation, and there is no evidence that the modality of language deaf individuals use contributes to crossmodal plasticity in Heschl's gyrus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 21%
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Professor 10 9%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 26%
Neuroscience 20 18%
Linguistics 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 27 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,307,216
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from NeuroImage
#2,842
of 12,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,679
of 278,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from NeuroImage
#51
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,204 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 278,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.