Deaf and hearing children: a comparison of peripheral vision development

Abstract

This study investigated peripheral vision (at least 30° eccentric to fixation) development in profoundly deaf children without cochlear implantation, and compared this to age-matched hearing controls as well as to deaf and hearing adult data. Deaf and hearing children between the ages of 5 and 15 years were assessed using a new, specifically paediatric designed method of static perimetry. The deaf group (N = 25) were 14 females and 11 males, mean age 9.92 years (range 5-15 years). The hearing group (N = 64) were 34 females, 30 males, mean age 9.13 years (range 5-15 years). All participants had good visual acuity in both eyes (< 0.200 LogMAR). Accuracy of detection and reaction time to briefly presented LED stimuli of three light intensities, at eccentricities between 30° and 85° were measured while fixation was maintained to a central target. The study found reduced peripheral vision in deaf children between 5 and 10 years of age. Deaf children (aged 5-10 years) showed slower reaction times to all stimuli and reduced ability to detect and accurately report dim stimuli in the far periphery. Deaf children performed equally to hearing children aged 11-12 years. Deaf adolescents aged 13-15 years demonstrated faster reaction times to all peripheral stimuli in comparison to hearing controls. Adolescent results were consistent with deaf and hearing adult performances wherein deaf adults also showed significantly faster reaction times than hearing controls. Peripheral vision performance on this task was found to reach adult-like levels of maturity in deaf and hearing children, both in reaction time and accuracy of detection at the age of 11-12 years.

Peripheral Visual Fields in Children and Young Adults Using Semi-automated Kinetic Perimetry: Feasibility of Testing, Normative Data, and Repeatability

“…Maturation of peripheral vision has been reported to occur as young as 5 years 2 and as old as 13 years of age, 3 with a range of peripheral vision maturities reported between these ages. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] These vast maturity differences likely result from hugely different perimetric methods. For example, 20 eccentricity was used by Blumenthal et al 8 and over 90 eccentricity by other studies.…”

Temporal entrainment of visual attention in children: Effects of age and deafness

“…Looking at data from the children, this deaf advantage was only apparent from the age of 11 years onwards – prior to that there was no observed difference between the groups. A subsequent report by Codina, Buckley, Port, and Pascalis (2011) looked at how accurately 5–15 year old deaf and hearing children could detect LED lights in the far periphery (30–85 degrees of visual angle). They reported that deaf children outperformed hearing children in the 13–15 year age category.…”

Investigating the face inversion effect in a deaf population using the Dimensions Tasks

“…When faces are inverted, hearing participants can only rely on their central regions of attention due to the contraction of the "perceptual field" and, therefore, when they were attending to the eye (mouth) region of the inverted faces, they were not able to detect changes in the mouth (eye) region in their peripheral region of attention. Deaf participants, however, due to the sign language experience, possessed greater attentional resources in the periphery visual field as compared to hearing participants (Armstrong et al, 2002;Bavelier et al, 2000Bavelier et al, , 2006Bosworth & Dobkins, 2002;Buckley et al, 2010;Codina et al, 2011;Dye et al, 2009;Lore & Song, 1991;Neville & Lawson, 1987;Proksch & Bavelier, 2002;Stivalet et al, 1998). Therefore, when processing inverted faces, although the "perceptual field" was also smaller as compared to when processing upright faces, deaf participants were still able to utilize some of the peripheral visual field attentional resources to detect the changes.…”

“…There is evidence showing that the deprivation of auditory input can result in the redistribution of attentional resources across the visual field. For example, several studies showed that deaf participants had enhanced attention to the information at their peripheral visual field, but possessed less attentional resource at their centre visual field as compared to the hearing controls (Armstrong, Neville, Hillyard, & Mitchell, 2002;Bavelier et al, 2000Bavelier et al, , 2006Bosworth & Dobkins, 2002;Buckley, Codina, Bhardwaj, & Pascalis, 2010;Codina, Buckley, Port, & Pascalis, 2011;Dye, Hauser, & Bavelier, 2009;Lore & Song, 1991;Neville & Lawson, 1987;Proksch & Bavelier, 2002;Stivalet, Moreno, Richard, Barraud, & Raphel, 1998; see Bavelier & Neville, 2002;Bavelier, Dye, & Hauser, 2006, for reviews). This cross-channel compensation effect was consistent with the findings using neural-imaging methods that enhanced activities in the auditory cortex were observed when processing visual information for deaf participants as compared to the hearing controls (for a review, see Bavelier & Neville, 2002).…”