Skip to Main Content
Table 1. 
Summary of Psychophysical Studies Investigating Crossmodal Visual Plasticity in the Deaf
TasksSpeciesSampleDeafness OnsetResults p < .05Author(s)
Motion detection Human 16 Deaf and 20 hearing adults Mixed The deaf were better than the controls Shiell et al. (2014) 
Human 13 Deaf and 13 hearing adults Not informed The deaf were better than controls Stevens and Neville (2006) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital The deaf were better than the controls Lomber et al. (2010) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital The deaf were better than the controls Lomber et al. (2011) 
Motion direction Human 9 Deaf and 15 hearing adults Mixed The deaf showed right visual field advantage Bosworth and Dobkins (1999) 
Human 16 Deaf and 25 hearing adults Mixed The deaf showed right visual field and peripheral advantages. The hearing showed left visual field advantage Bosworth and Dobkins (2002) 
Human 19 Deaf and 19 hearing adults Mixed   Hauthal et al. (2013) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Motion velocity Human 12 Deaf and 12 hearing adults Not Informed The deaf showed right visual field and peripheral advantages Brozinsky and Bavelier (2004) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Visual localization Human 25 Deaf and 64 hearing children; 17 deaf and 18 hearing adults Mixed Deaf children (5–10 years) were worse the controls in the periphery. Deaf adolescents (13–15 years) were better than the controls in the periphery. Deaf adults were better than the controls in the periphery Codina et al. (2011) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital The deaf were better than the controls in the periphery Lomber et al. (2010) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital The deaf were better than the controls in the periphery Lomber et al. (2011) 
Visuomotor synchronization Human 23 Deaf and 22 hearing adults Mixed The deaf were better than the controls Iversen et al. (2015) 
Orientation discrimination Human 12 Deaf and 12 hearing children Congenital   Parasnis et al. (1996) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Temporal discrimination Human 6 Deaf and 6 hearing adults Congenital   Bross and Sauerwein (1980) 
Human 44 Deaf and 50 hearing adults Mixed   Mills (1985) 
Human 10 Deaf and 12 hearing adults Congenital   Poizner and Tallal (1987) 
Object discrimination Human 40 Deaf and 40 hearing adolescents Mixed Deaf adolescents were better than the controls Megreya and Bindemann (2017) 
Brightness discrimination Human 6 Deaf and 6 hearing children Not informed   Bross (1979) 
Contrast sensitivity Human 13 Deaf and 21 hearing adults Mixed   Finney et al. (2001) 
Human 13 Deaf and 13 hearing adults Not informed   Stevens and Neville (2006) 
Grating acuity Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Vernier acuity Human 14 Deaf and 15 hearing adults Congenital The deaf were better than the controls in the periphery Smittenaar et al. (2016) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Facial discrimination Human 40 Deaf and 40 hearing adolescents Mixed Deaf adolescents were better than the controls Megreya and Bindemann (2017) 
Human 12 Deaf and 12 hearing children Congenital   Parasnis et al. (1996) 
TasksSpeciesSampleDeafness OnsetResults p < .05Author(s)
Motion detection Human 16 Deaf and 20 hearing adults Mixed The deaf were better than the controls Shiell et al. (2014) 
Human 13 Deaf and 13 hearing adults Not informed The deaf were better than controls Stevens and Neville (2006) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital The deaf were better than the controls Lomber et al. (2010) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital The deaf were better than the controls Lomber et al. (2011) 
Motion direction Human 9 Deaf and 15 hearing adults Mixed The deaf showed right visual field advantage Bosworth and Dobkins (1999) 
Human 16 Deaf and 25 hearing adults Mixed The deaf showed right visual field and peripheral advantages. The hearing showed left visual field advantage Bosworth and Dobkins (2002) 
Human 19 Deaf and 19 hearing adults Mixed   Hauthal et al. (2013) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Motion velocity Human 12 Deaf and 12 hearing adults Not Informed The deaf showed right visual field and peripheral advantages Brozinsky and Bavelier (2004) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Visual localization Human 25 Deaf and 64 hearing children; 17 deaf and 18 hearing adults Mixed Deaf children (5–10 years) were worse the controls in the periphery. Deaf adolescents (13–15 years) were better than the controls in the periphery. Deaf adults were better than the controls in the periphery Codina et al. (2011) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital The deaf were better than the controls in the periphery Lomber et al. (2010) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital The deaf were better than the controls in the periphery Lomber et al. (2011) 
Visuomotor synchronization Human 23 Deaf and 22 hearing adults Mixed The deaf were better than the controls Iversen et al. (2015) 
Orientation discrimination Human 12 Deaf and 12 hearing children Congenital   Parasnis et al. (1996) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Temporal discrimination Human 6 Deaf and 6 hearing adults Congenital   Bross and Sauerwein (1980) 
Human 44 Deaf and 50 hearing adults Mixed   Mills (1985) 
Human 10 Deaf and 12 hearing adults Congenital   Poizner and Tallal (1987) 
Object discrimination Human 40 Deaf and 40 hearing adolescents Mixed Deaf adolescents were better than the controls Megreya and Bindemann (2017) 
Brightness discrimination Human 6 Deaf and 6 hearing children Not informed   Bross (1979) 
Contrast sensitivity Human 13 Deaf and 21 hearing adults Mixed   Finney et al. (2001) 
Human 13 Deaf and 13 hearing adults Not informed   Stevens and Neville (2006) 
Grating acuity Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Vernier acuity Human 14 Deaf and 15 hearing adults Congenital The deaf were better than the controls in the periphery Smittenaar et al. (2016) 
Cat 3 Deaf and 3 hearing Congenital   Lomber et al. (2010) 
Facial discrimination Human 40 Deaf and 40 hearing adolescents Mixed Deaf adolescents were better than the controls Megreya and Bindemann (2017) 
Human 12 Deaf and 12 hearing children Congenital   Parasnis et al. (1996) 
Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal