HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stevens, C. Articles by Neville, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stevens, C. Articles by Neville, H.

Neuroplasticity as a Double-edged Sword: Deaf Enhancements and Dyslexic Deficits in Motion Processing

University of Oregon

Reprint requests should be sent to Courtney Darves Stevens, 1227 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, or via e-mail: courtney@uoregon.edu.

We examined the hypothesis that aspects of processing that are most modifiable by experience (i.e., "plastic") display the most vulnerability in developmental disorders and the most compensatory enhancement after sensory deprivation. A large literature reports that motion processing and magnocellular visual function is selectively deficient in dyslexia. A smaller literature reports enhancements in such functions in deaf individuals. However, studies with dyslexic and deaf individuals have used different experimental paradigms to assess visual function, and no research has yet examined both sides of modifiability (i.e., enhancements and deficits) using the same experimental paradigm. In the present research, visual function was compared in dyslexic (n = 15), deaf (n = 17), and control adults by using automated peripheral kinetic and foveal static perimetry. In the kinetic perimetry task, the dyslexic group showed deficits (p < .003), whereas the deaf group showed enhancements (p < .001) for detecting moving light points in the periphery. In the foveal static perimetry task, neither the dyslexic (p = .866) nor the deaf (p = .632) group differed significantly from controls in foveal contrast sensitivity thresholds, and no group or individual approached ceiling performance on this task. Taken together, the present data bridge previous literatures and suggest that motion processing tasks are selectively modifiable, either to decrement or enhancement, whereas foveal contrast sensitivity does not differ in dyslexic or deaf groups.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. C. Hauser, J. Cohen, M. W. G. Dye, and D. Bavelier Visual Constructive and Visual-Motor Skills in Deaf Native Signers J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., April 1, 2007; 12(2): 148 - 157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]