Acomparison of reaction times between adolescentr with visual and auditory imparement and those without any impairment

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the auditory and visual reaction times of adolescents with auditory and visual impairment and those of controls without any impairment in order to investigate whether adolescents who lack one sense have an enhanced ability with the other. Methods: A total of 64 adolescents with auditory impairment, 60 adolescents with visual impairment, and 59 controls without impairment, were included in the study. Visually impaired adolescents simple auditory reaction times, auditory impaired adolescents simple visual reaction time, and the controls visual and auditory simple reaction times were evaluated with the New Test 100.Results: While no statistically significant difference was found between auditory reaction times of controls and visually impaired adolescents (p>0.05), a significant difference was observed in visual reaction times of controls and auditory impaired adolescents (p<0.05). Conclusion: The reason why auditory impaired adolescents have longer simple reaction times could result from peripheral or central stimulation, changes in input processing in the cerebrum and their focus on lip reading and sign language compared to visually impaired adolescents

Keywords

• Reaction time; visually impaired; auditory impaired

Görme engelli, işitme engelli ve sağlıklı adelosanların reaksiyon zamanlarının karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı görme engelli, işitme engelli ve sağlıklı bireylerde işitsel ve görsel reaksiyon zamanını karşılaştırmak ve bir duyusu eksik olan bireylerin diğer duyusunun daha iyi olup olmadığını araştırmaktı. Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya 64 işitme engelli, 60 görme engelli ve 59 sağlıklı birey dahil edildi. Görme engelli bireylerin işitsel reaksiyon zamanı, işitme engelli bireylerin basit görsel reaksiyon zamanı ve kontrol grubunda yer alan sağlıklı bireylerin hem görsel hem de basit işitsel reaksiyon zamanları New Test 100 aleti ile değerlendirildi.Sonuçlar: Sağlıklı ve görme engelli bireylerin işitsel reaksiyon zamanlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmazken (p>0.05), işitme engelli ve sağlıklı bireylerin görsel reaksiyon zamanlarında fark olduğu (p<0.05) gözlendi. Tartışma: İşitme engelli bireylerin basit reaksiyon zamanlarının daha uzun olması, uyarının periferden veya merkezden verilmesi, serebrumdaki duyu işleme sürecindeki değişikliklerin olması ve görme engelli bireylere göre dudak okuma ve işaret diline odaklanmaları bu farkı yaratmış olabilir

Keywords

• Reaksiyon zamanı; görme engelli; işitme engelli

References

1. Nava E, Bottari D, Zampini M, et al. Visual temporal or- der judgment in profoundly deaf individuals. Exp Brain Res. 2008;190(2):179-188.
2. Erden Z, Otman S, Tunay BV. Is visual perception of hearing- impaired children different from healty children? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;68(3):281-285.
3. Neville HJ, Lawson DS. Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: an event-related potenti- al and behavioral study: II. congenitally deaf adults. Brain Res. 1987;405(2):268-283.
4. Neville HJ, Lawson DS. Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: III. separate effects of audi- tory deprivation and acquisition of a visual language. Brain Res. 1987;405(2):284-294.
5. Rettenbach R, Diller G, Sireteanu R. Do deaf people see better? Texture segmentation and visual search compensate in adult but not in juvenile subjects. J Cogn Neurosci. 1999;11(5):560-583.
6. Murdoch IE, Jones BR, Cousens SN, et al. Visual field constriction as a cause of blindness or visual impairment. Bull World Health Organ. 1997;75(2):141-146.
7. Tamer K. Sporda Fiziksel ve Fizyolojik Performansın Ölçülmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi. 2. Basım, Ankara: Bağırgan Yayınevi; 2000:52– 60.
8. Sladen DP, Tharpe AM, Ashmead DH, et al. Visual attention in deaf and normal hearing adults: Effects of stimulus compatibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005;48(6):1529-1537.

9. Hoemann H. Perception by the deaf. In: Carterette E, Friedman M, eds. Handbook of perception: Perceptual ecology. New York: Academic Press;1978:43-63.
10. Parasnis I. Visual perceptual skills and deafness: A research re- view. J Acad Rehabil Audiol. 1983;16:148-160.
11. Reynolds H. Effects of foveal stimulation on peripheral visual pro- cessing and laterality in deaf and hearing subjects. Am J Psychol. 1993;106(4):523-540.
12. Dye M, Bavelier D. Attentional enhancements and deficits in deaf populations: An integrative review. Restor Neurol Neuros. 2010;28(2):181-192.
13. Quittner AL, Smith LB, Osberger MJ, et al. The impact of au- dition on the development of visual attention. Psychol Sci. 1994;5(6):347-353.
14. Loke WH, Song S. Central and peripheral visual processing in hearing and nonhearing individuals. Bull Psychon Soc. 1991;29(5):437-440.
15. Tharpe AM, Ashmead DH, Rothpletz AM. Visual attention in child- ren with normal hearing children with hearing aids and cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(2):403-413.
16. Parasnis I, Samar VJ. Visual perception of verbal informayion by deaf people. In: Sims D, Walter G, Whiteheat R, eds. Deafness and Communation: Assesment and training. Baltimora: Williams & Wilkins;1982:53-57.
17. Parasnis I, Samar VJ. Parafoveal attention in congenitally deaf and hearing young adults. Brain and Cog. 1985;4(3):323-327.
18. Parasnis I, Samar V, Bettger J, et al. Does deafness lead to enhan- cement of visual spatial cognition in children? Negative evidence from deaf nonsigners. J Deaf Stud Deaf Edu.1996;1(2):145-152.
19. Neville H, Schmidt A, Kutas M. Altered visual-evoked potentials in congenitally deaf adults. Brain Res. 1983;266(1):127-132.
20. Seitz PF, Rakerd B. Auditory stimulus intensity and reaction time in listeners with longstanding sensorineural hearing loss. Ear Hear. 1997;18(6):502-512.
21. Smith LB, Quitner AL, Osberg MJ. Audition and visual attention: the development trajectory in deaf and hearing populations. Dev Psychol. 1998;34(5):840-850.
22. Proksch J, Bavelier D. Changes in the spatial distribution of visual attention after early deafness. J Cognitive Neurosci. 2002;14(5):687-701.
23. Hauser P, Dye M, Boutla M, et al. Deafness and visual enumerati- on: Not all aspects of attention are modified by deafness. Brain Res. 2007;1153:178-187.
24. Bavelier D, Dye MW, Hauser PC. Do deaf individuals see better? Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10(11):512-518.