| Title |
Response bias reveals enhanced attention to inferior visual field in signers of American Sign Language
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-015-4530-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew W. G. Dye, Jenessa L. Seymour, Peter C. Hauser |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 55% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,218,410
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,565
of 3,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,399
of 391,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#22
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 391,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.