↓ Skip to main content

Peripheral Visual Reaction Time Is Faster in Deaf Adults and British Sign Language Interpreters than in Hearing Adults

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
17 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Peripheral Visual Reaction Time Is Faster in Deaf Adults and British Sign Language Interpreters than in Hearing Adults
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00050
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte J. Codina, Olivier Pascalis, Heidi A. Baseler, Alexandra T. Levine, David Buckley

Abstract

Following auditory deprivation, the remaining sense of vision has shown selective enhancement in visual cognition, especially in the area of near peripheral vision. Visual acuity is poor in the far periphery and may be an area where sound confers the greatest advantage in hearing persons. Experience with a visuospatial language such as British Sign Language (BSL) makes additional demands on the visual system. To test the different and separable effects of deafness and use of a visuo-spatial language on far peripheral visual processing, we investigated visual reaction times (RTs) and response accuracy to visual stimuli, between 30° and 85° along the four cardinal and four inter-cardinal meridians. We used three luminances of static, briefly illuminated stimuli in visually normal adults. The cohort tested included profoundly congenitally deaf adults (N = 17), hearing fluent BSL users (N = 8) and hearing non-signing adults (N = 18). All participants were tested using a peripheral forced choice paradigm designed previously to test deaf and hearing children (Codina et al., 2011a). Deaf adults demonstrated significantly faster RTs to all far peripheral stimuli and exceeded the abilities of both signing and non-signing hearing adults. Deaf adults were significantly faster than BSL interpreters, who in turn were significantly faster than hearing non-signing adults. The differences in RT demonstrated between groups were consistent across all visual field meridians and were not localized to any one region of the visual field. There were no differences found between any groups in accuracy of detecting these static stimuli at any retinal location. Early onset auditory deprivation appears to lead to a response time visual advantage in far peripheral responses to briefly presented, static LED stimuli, especially in the right visual field. Fluency in BSL facilitates faster visuo-motor responses in the peripheral visual field, but to a lesser extent than congenital, profound deafness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 87 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 20 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 25%
Neuroscience 9 10%
Linguistics 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 25 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 151. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#272,085
of 25,362,278 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#573
of 34,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,961
of 424,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#19
of 464 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 424,770 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 464 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.