↓ Skip to main content

Semantic Processing in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children: Large N400 Mismatch Effects in Brain Responses, Despite Poor Semantic Ability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Semantic Processing in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children: Large N400 Mismatch Effects in Brain Responses, Despite Poor Semantic Ability
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petter Kallioinen, Jonas Olofsson, Cecilia Nakeva von Mentzer, Magnus Lindgren, Marianne Ors, Birgitta S. Sahlén, Björn Lyxell, Elisabet Engström, Inger Uhlén

Abstract

Difficulties in auditory and phonological processing affect semantic processing in speech comprehension for deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children. However, little is known about brain responses related to semantic processing in this group. We investigated event-related potentials (ERPs) in DHH children with cochlear implants (CIs) and/or hearing aids (HAs), and in normally hearing controls (NH). We used a semantic priming task with spoken word primes followed by picture targets. In both DHH children and controls, cortical response differences between matching and mismatching targets revealed a typical N400 effect associated with semantic processing. Children with CI had the largest mismatch response despite poor semantic abilities overall; Children with CI also had the largest ERP differentiation between mismatch types, with small effects in within-category mismatch trials (target from same category as prime) and large effects in between-category mismatch trials (where target is from a different category than prime), compared to matching trials. Children with NH and HA had similar responses to both mismatch types. While the large and differentiated ERP responses in the CI group were unexpected and should be interpreted with caution, the results could reflect less precision in semantic processing among children with CI, or a stronger reliance on predictive processing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 27%
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 26%
Linguistics 11 16%
Neuroscience 9 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,829,320
of 23,335,153 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,956
of 31,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#277,743
of 359,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#327
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,335,153 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 359,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.