↓ Skip to main content

Visuo-tactile interactions in the congenitally deaf: a behavioral and event-related potential study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Visuo-tactile interactions in the congenitally deaf: a behavioral and event-related potential study
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2014.00098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadine Hauthal, Stefan Debener, Stefan Rach, Pascale Sandmann, Jeremy D. Thorne

Abstract

Auditory deprivation is known to be accompanied by alterations in visual processing. Yet not much is known about tactile processing and the interplay of the intact sensory modalities in the deaf. We presented visual, tactile, and visuo-tactile stimuli to congenitally deaf and hearing individuals in a speeded detection task. Analyses of multisensory responses showed a redundant signals effect that was attributable to a coactivation mechanism in both groups, although the redundancy gain was less in the deaf. In line with these behavioral results, on a neural level, there were multisensory interactions in both groups that were again weaker in the deaf. In hearing but not deaf participants, somatosensory event-related potential N200 latencies were modulated by simultaneous visual stimulation. A comparison of unisensory responses between groups revealed larger N200 amplitudes for visual and shorter N200 latencies for tactile stimuli in the deaf. Furthermore, P300 amplitudes were also larger in the deaf. This group difference was significant for tactile and approached significance for visual targets. The differences in visual and tactile processing between deaf and hearing participants, however, were not reflected in behavior. Both the behavioral and electroencephalography (EEG) results suggest more pronounced multisensory interaction in hearing than in deaf individuals. Visuo-tactile enhancements could not be explained by perceptual deficiency, but could be partly attributable to inverse effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 2%
India 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 31%
Student > Master 11 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 13 24%
Psychology 13 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 November 2020.
All research outputs
#6,279,712
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#276
of 854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,279
of 351,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 351,762 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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.