Modifications of Visual Field Asymmetries for Face Categorization in Early Deaf Adults: A Study With Chimeric Faces

Abstract

Right hemisphere lateralization for face processing is well documented in typical populations. At the behavioral level, this right hemisphere bias is often related to a left visual field (LVF) bias. A conventional mean to study this phenomenon consists of using chimeric faces that are composed of the left and right parts of two faces. In this paradigm, participants generally use the left part of the chimeric face, mostly processed through the right optic tract, to determine its identity, gender or age. To assess the impact of early auditory deprivation on face processing abilities, we tested the LVF bias in a group of early deaf participants and hearing controls. In two experiments, deaf and hearing participants performed a gender categorization task with chimeric and normal average faces. Over the two experiments the results confirmed the presence of a LVF bias in participants, which was less frequent in deaf participants. This result suggested modifications of hemispheric lateralization for face processing in deaf participants. In Experiment 2 we also recorded eye movements to examine whether the LVF bias could be related to face scanning behavior. In this second study, participants performed a similar task while we recorded eye movements using an eye tracking system. Using areas of interest analysis we observed that the proportion of fixations on the mouth relatively to the other areas was increased in deaf participants in comparison with the hearing group. This was associated with a decrease of the proportion of fixations on the eyes. In addition these measures were correlated to the LVF bias suggesting a relationship between the LVF bias and the patterns of facial exploration. Taken together, these results suggest that early auditory deprivation results in plasticity phenomenon affecting the perception of static faces through modifications of hemispheric lateralization and of gaze behavior.

Spatial biases in deaf, blind, and deafblind individuals as revealed by a haptic line bisection task

“…In bisection tasks, this could, in theory, lead to the left side being perceived as longer so that the perceived centre is shifted towards the left side. Prior findings suggest that the left hemisphere may be recruited to a greater extent in deaf than in hearing individuals by visuospatial tasks tapping on different abilities, such as motion discrimination, spatial processing, and face processing (e.g., Bosworth, Petrich, & Dobkins, 2013; Brozinsky & Bavelier, 2004; Cattani & Clibbens, 2005; Dole, Méary, & Pascalis, 2017; Weisberg, Koo, Crain, & Eden, 2012; but see Dye, Seymour, & Hauser, 2016), a finding that likely depends on both sensory deprivation per se and sign language use. Accordingly, in a prior study (Cattaneo, Lega, Cecchetto, & Papagno, 2014), we found that deaf individuals (irrespective of sign language use) did not show any systematic bias in bisecting visual lines, whereas hearing controls showed the typical tendency to over-represent the left portion of space (i.e., pseudoneglect).…”

Brain lateralization of face recognition in hearing-impairedindividuals

“…而语言加工的神经中枢位于左半球，因此听障个体在加工表情会显著激活大脑 左半球的语言中枢，从而导致表情加工右脑优势效应的减弱或消失 [28] . 尽管对听障个体表情加 工的偏侧化特点得到了较多的研究，但是目前很少有研究关注听障个体中性面孔加工的偏侧化 特点 [33] . 对听障个体中性面孔加工的偏侧化特点研究不但能加深我们对听障个体视知觉特点 的理解，还能更好地揭示人类面孔加工偏侧化的形成是如何受经验的影响.…”

“…对听障个体中性面孔加工的偏侧化特点研究不但能加深我们对听障个体视知觉特点 的理解，还能更好地揭示人类面孔加工偏侧化的形成是如何受经验的影响. Dole 等人 [33] [34,35] . 并且，以往关于听障个体表情加工的研究表明，任务的 性质也会影响到表情加工的偏侧化效应 [28,36] .…”

“…基于此，本研究以语前聋(听力障碍出现在 3 岁前)的成年学生和年龄匹配的健听学生为研 究对象，通过行为实验(实验一)和电生理实验(实验二)考察听障个体面孔加工的大脑偏侧化特 点. Dole 等人 [33] 的研究采用的是面孔嵌合实验任务， 尽管可以根据对左/右半边脸的加工偏向来 考察左/右侧视野加工优势，但是嵌合面孔总是呈现在中央视野. 在本研究的实验一中，我们采 用分视野范式(divided visual field paradigm)，面孔刺激呈现在左或者右侧视野.…”

Electrophysiological Dynamics of Visual Speech Processing and the Role of Orofacial Effectors for Cross-Modal Predictions

“…A compelling illustration of the multisensorial integration of speech is the McGurk effect (McGurk and MacDonald, 1976). During ecological face-to-face interactions, perception of the speaker's orofacial articulatory movements offers critical complementary information for speech perception during infancy (Weikum et al, 2007;Lewkowicz and Hansen-Tift, 2012;Sebastián-Gallés et al, 2012;Tenenbaum et al, 2012), speech-in-noise perception (Sumby and Pollack, 1954;Ross et al, 2006), for non-native speech processing (Navarra and Soto-Faraco, 2005;Hirata and Kelly, 2010) and for people with hearing difficulties (Bernstein et al, 2000;Auer and Bernstein, 2007;Letourneau and Mitchell, 2013;Dole et al, 2017;Worster et al, 2017).…”