Evidence of minimal cerebral asymmetries for the processing of English words and American sign language in the congenitally deaf

McKeever, Walter F.; Hoemann, Harry W.; Florian, Vicki A.; VanDeventer, Allan D.

doi:10.1016/0028-3932(76)90070-1

Cited by 116 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature indicates that adult deaf subjects mostly have similar lateralization for verbal functions compared to that found in normal subjects; i.e. superiority of the left hemisphere in processing verbal material (Manning et al, 1977;Panou & Sewell, 1984;Poimer et a[., 1979) or a lack of hemispheric specialization with both hemispheres equally efficient (Marcotte & La Barba, 1985;Neville, 1980;Poizner & Lane, 1979;Scholes & Fischler, 1979;McKeever et al, 1976). The only result in agreement with ours was described by Kelly & Tomlinson-Keasy (1981) who also studied children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemispheric differences in the perception of words and faces in deaf and hearing children

Szela̧g

Wasilewski

Fersten

1992

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate hemispheric functional asymmetry in 18 normal hearing children and 18 congenitally deaf children aged 13-14 years. The task was identification of a visual stimulus (3-letter word or photograph of a face) presented in either the left or right visual field. The children responded by pointing to the target stimulus on a response card which contained four different words or three different faces. The percentage of errors for presentations to the two visual fields were analysed to determine hemispheric dominance. The pattern of hemispheric differences for the hearing children was consistent with that from previous investigations. The results for the deaf children differed from those of the normals. In word perception we observed a right hemisphere advantage and in the face recognition a lack of hemispheric differences. These results point to a lack of auditory experiences which is affecting the functional organization of the two hemispheres. It is suggested that the necessity to make use of visuo-spatial information in the process of communication causes right hemisphere dominance in verbal tasks. This may influence the perception of other visuo-spatial stimuli which may yield a lack of hemispheric asymmetry in face recognition.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemispheric differences in the perception of words and faces in deaf and hearing children

Szela̧g

Wasilewski

Fersten

1992

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies have shown comparable patterns of visual field lateralization and hemispheric specialization for deaf and hearing subjects (Bellugi, Poizner, & Klima, 1983;Boshoven et al, 1982;Poizner & Battison, 1980;Poizner, Kaplan, Bellugi, & Padden, 1984;Ross, 1983). However, other studies with deaf subjects have found little or no asymmetry, or asymmetries that are the opposite of those in hearing subjects (Boshoven et al, 1982;McKeever, Hoemann, Florian, & VanDeventer, 1976;Neville, 1977Neville, , 1984Neville & Bellugi, 1978;Neville & Lawson, 1987c;Phippard, 1977;Ross, 1983).…”

Section: Haith and Morrison 1977;mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Foveal Stimulation on Peripheral Visual Processing and Laterality in Deaf and Hearing Subjects

Reynolds¹

1993

The American Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines visual field differences in the detection and identification of a peripheral stimulus for deaf and hearing subjects, as a function of concurrent foveal stimulation. Deaf and hearing subjects were presented with peripheral target stimuli (simple geometric shapes) presented tachistoscopically to the left or right visual fields under four conditions of foveal stimulation: (a) no stimulus; (b) simple geometric shapes; (c) pictorial shapes (outline drawings); and (d) orthographic letters. Dependent measures were detection response latency and peripheral shape recognition (errors). With error data, hearing subjects showed a right field advantage under foveal conditions of no stimulus and simple shape stimulus, but a left field advantage with pictorial and letter foveal stimuli. Deaf subjects showed the opposite effect, with a left field advantage under foveal conditions of no stimulus and simple shape stimulus, but a right field advantage with pictorial and letter foveal stimuli. Latency data revealed the same pattern of results for hearing subjects, but no significant visual field differences for deaf subjects. Results are interpreted in terms of differences in hemispheric visual processing used by deaf and hearing subjects, as affected by varying conditions of foveal load.

show abstract

“…The sequencing of conditions in laterality studies is known to affect results (Kimura & Durnford, 1974), and contributes to problems of interpretation, not only in Phippard's (1977) study, but in others of a similar vein (Manning, Goble, Markham, & LaBreche, 1977;McKeever, Hoemann, Florian, VanDeventer, 1976). study differs from ours in dependent measure: they used reaction time, whereas we used percent correct.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Studiesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Asymmetries for Ameslan handshapes and other forms in signers and nonsigners

Virostek

Cutting

1979

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence of minimal cerebral asymmetries for the processing of English words and American sign language in the congenitally deaf

Cited by 116 publications

References 25 publications

Hemispheric differences in the perception of words and faces in deaf and hearing children

Hemispheric differences in the perception of words and faces in deaf and hearing children

Effects of Foveal Stimulation on Peripheral Visual Processing and Laterality in Deaf and Hearing Subjects

Asymmetries for Ameslan handshapes and other forms in signers and nonsigners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About