ArticleJournal of deaf studies and deaf education2020
Hemispheric Asymmetries in Deaf and Hearing During Sustained Peripheral Selective Attention.
Article in Journal of deaf studies and deaf education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stronger neural response to canonical finger-number configurations in deaf compared to hearing adults revealed by FPVS-EEG.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that compared to hearing individuals, early deaf individuals allocate relatively more attention to the periphery than central visual field. However, it is not clear whether these two groups also differ in their ability to selectively attend to specific peripheral locations. We examined deaf and hearing participants' selective attention using electroencephalography (EEG) and a frequency tagging paradigm, in which participants attended to one of two peripheral displays of moving dots that changed directions at different rates. Both participant groups showed similar amplifications and reductions in the EEG signal at the attended and unattended frequencies, indicating similar control over their peripheral attention for motion stimuli. However, for deaf participants these effects were larger in a right hemispheric region of interest (ROI), while for hearing participants these effects were larger in a left ROI. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence for a right hemispheric processing advantage in deaf populations when attending to motion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.