Intermodal Compensation following Damage or Deprivation: A Review of Behavioral and Neural Evidence

Do Deaf People See Better? Texture Segmentation and Visual Search Compensate in Adult but Not in Juvenile Subjects

“…Careful reanalysis of the studies collected by Burnstine et al (1984) and consideration of newer reports made us realize that the results of the studies varied with the age of the subjects and the conditions used. Deaf adolescents and adults usually showed capacities of their remaining senses that exceeded those of hearing subjects (Chovan, Waldron, & Rose, 1988;Neville, 1990;Neville & Lawson, 1987;Neville et al, 1983;Parasnis & Samar, 1985;Raynolds, 1993), whereas most of the neuropsychological studies with children (Binnie et al, 1966;Brechmann & Lockowandt, 1978;Bross, 1979;Joch, 1980;Myklebust & Brutten, 1952;Ratner, 1985Ratner, , 1988Reimann, 1983aReimann, , 1983bSterrit, 1966) indicated the opposite effect.…”

“…Burnstine, Greenough, and Tees (1984) summarized the results of relevant studies with human subjects and concluded that many reports can be discounted due to methodological problems. But even in the remaining studies with blind and deaf subjects the data are confusing: Half of the studies reported evidence for intermodal compensation, in one-fourth there was no difference in the performance of the remaining senses in comparison with those of nonhandicapped subjects, and the last fourth indicated that the loss of one sense resulted in impairments in the abilities of the other sensory modalities.…”

An examination of the intramodal and intermodal behavioral consequences of long‐term vibrissae removal in rats

“…While Gustafson and Felbain-Keramidas (1977) did make a number of preliminary observations on the effects of early vibrissectomy on behavior, our continued lack of knowledge is unfortunate. Most notably, the role of competence in the developmental history of the somatosensory system could have special significance for those interested in the proposition that differential experience in one modality might also have consequences for the development of other sensory systems (e.g., Burnstine, Greenough, & Tees, 1984;Gottlieb, 1971;Tees, 1976;Turkewitz & Kenny, 1982). In this regard, Gottlieb's (1971) seminal paper pointed to an invariant sequence of emergence of the onset of function of the modalities: tactile development occurred first, followed in order by vestibular, olfactory, auditory, and visual development.…”

“…Two possible effects have been suggested (Burnstine et al, 1984). First, reduction of input to one modality might lead to decreased competition for a spared modality, thus leading (possibly) to increased competence of the latter.…”

“…Fragmentary evidence also exists for the second of Turkewitz and Kenny's (1982) propositions. Based on Schneirla (1965), they proposed that disruption of an "organizational framework" for a behavior might adversely affect the subsequent level of competence of that behavior even with respect to signals in other modalities (Burnstine et al, 1984). The evidence for this hypothesis comes primarily from studies of spatial behavior.…”