Signal detection analysis of visual flicker in deaf and hearing individuals

Somatosensory processing in deaf and deafblind individuals: How does the brain adapt as a function of sensory and linguistic experience? A critical review

How do deaf and deafblind individuals process touch? This question offers a unique model to understand the prospects and constraints of neural plasticity. Our brain constantly receives and processes signals from the environment and combines them into the most reliable information content. The nervous system adapts its functional and structural organization according to the input, and perceptual processing develops as a function of individual experience. However, there are still many unresolved questions regarding the deciding factors for these changes in deaf and deafblind individuals, and so far, findings are not consistent. To date, most studies have not taken the sensory and linguistic experiences of the included participants into account. As a result, the impact of sensory deprivation vs. language experience on somatosensory processing remains inconclusive. Even less is known about the impact of deafblindness on brain development. The resulting neural adaptations could be even more substantial, but no clear patterns have yet been identified. How do deafblind individuals process sensory input? Studies on deafblindness have mostly focused on single cases or groups of late-blind individuals. Importantly, the language backgrounds of deafblind communities are highly variable and include the usage of tactile languages. So far, this kind of linguistic experience and its consequences have not been considered in studies on basic perceptual functions. Here, we will provide a critical review of the literature, aiming at identifying determinants for neuroplasticity and gaps in our current knowledge of somatosensory processing in deaf and deafblind individuals.

Developmental experiences alter the temporal processing characteristics of the visual cortex: Evidence from deaf and hearing native signers

To date, the extent to which early experience shapes the functional characteristics of neural circuits is still a matter of debate. In the present study, we tested whether congenital deafness and/or the acquisition of a sign language alter the temporal processing characteristics of the visual system. Moreover, we investigated whether, assuming cross-modal plasticity in deaf individuals, the temporal processing characteristics of possibly reorganised auditory areas resemble those of the visual cortex. Steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs) were recorded in congenitally deaf native signers, hearing native signers, and hearing nonsigners. The luminance of the visual stimuli was periodically modulated at 12, 21, and 40 Hz. For hearing nonsigners, the optimal driving rate was 12 Hz. By contrast, for the group of hearing signers the optimal driving rate was 12 and 21 Hz, whereas for the group of deaf signers the optimal driving rate was 21 Hz. We did not observe evidence for cross-modal recruitment of auditory cortex in the group of deaf signers. These results suggest a higher preferred neural processing rate as a consequence of the acquisition of a sign language.

Reduced flash lag illusion in early deaf individuals

When a brief flash is quickly presented aligned with a moving target, the flash typically appears to lag behind the moving stimulus. This effect is widely known in the literature as a flash-lag illusion (FLI). The flash-lag is an example of a motion-induced position shift. Since auditory deprivation leads to both enhanced visual skills and impaired temporal abilities, both crucial for the perception of the flash-lag effect, here we hypothesized that lack of audition could influence the FLI. 13 early deaf and 18 hearing individuals were tested in a visual FLI paradigm to investigate this hypothesis. As expected, results demonstrated a reduction of the flash-lag effect following early deafness, both in the central and peripheral visual fields. Moreover, only for deaf individuals, there is a positive correlation between the flash-lag effect in the peripheral and central visual field, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying the effect in the center of the visual field expand to the periphery following deafness. Overall, these findings reveal that lack of audition early in life profoundly impacts early visual processing underlying the flash-lag effect.

Cortical Activity Linked to Clocking in Deaf Adults: fNIRS Insights with Static and Animated Stimuli Presentation

The question of the possible impact of deafness on temporal processing remains unanswered. Different findings, based on behavioral measures, show contradictory results. The goal of the present study is to analyze the brain activity underlying time estimation by using functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) techniques, which allow examination of the frontal, central and occipital cortical areas. A total of 37 participants (19 deaf) were recruited. The experimental task involved processing a road scene to determine whether the driver had time to safely execute a driving task, such as overtaking. The road scenes were presented in animated format, or in sequences of 3 static images showing the beginning, mid-point, and end of a situation. The latter presentation required a clocking mechanism to estimate the time between the samples to evaluate vehicle speed. The results show greater frontal region activity in deaf people, which suggests that more cognitive effort is needed to process these scenes. The central region, which is involved in clocking according to several studies, is particularly activated by the static presentation in deaf people during the estimation of time lapses. Exploration of the occipital region yielded no conclusive results. Our results on the frontal and central regions encourage further study of the neural basis of time processing and its links with auditory capacity.

What and How the Deaf Brain Sees

Over the past decade, there has been an unprecedented level of interest and progress into understanding visual processing in the brain of the deaf. Specifically, when the brain is deprived of input from one sensory modality (such as hearing), it often compensates with supranormal performance in one or more of the intact sensory systems (such as vision). Recent psychophysical, functional imaging, and reversible deactivation studies have converged to define the specific visual abilities that are enhanced in the deaf, as well as the cortical loci that undergo crossmodal plasticity in the deaf and are responsible for mediating these superior visual functions. Examination of these investigations reveals that central visual functions, such as object and facial discrimination, and peripheral visual functions, such as motion detection, visual localization, visuomotor synchronization, and Vernier acuity (measured in the periphery), are specifically enhanced in the deaf, compared with hearing participants. Furthermore, the cortical loci identified to mediate these functions reside in deaf auditory cortex: BA 41, BA 42, and BA 22, in addition to the rostral area, planum temporale, Te3, and temporal voice area in humans; primary auditory cortex, anterior auditory field, dorsal zone of auditory cortex, auditory field of the anterior ectosylvian sulcus, and posterior auditory field in cats; and primary auditory cortex and anterior auditory field in both ferrets and mice. Overall, the findings from these studies show that crossmodal reorganization in auditory cortex of the deaf is responsible for the superior visual abilities of the deaf.

Spatial Cues Influence Time Estimations in Deaf Individuals

Recent studies have reported a strong interaction between spatial and temporal representation when visual experience is missing: blind people use temporal representation of events to represent spatial metrics. Given the superiority of audition on time perception, we hypothesized that when audition is not available complex temporal representations could be impaired, and spatial representation of events could be used to build temporal metrics. To test this hypothesis, deaf and hearing subjects were tested with a visual temporal task where conflicting and not conflicting spatiotemporal information was delivered. As predicted, we observed a strong deficit of deaf participants when only temporal cues were useful and space was uninformative with respect to time. However, the deficit disappeared when coherent spatiotemporal cues were presented and increased for conflicting spatiotemporal stimuli. These results highlight that spatial cues influence time estimations in deaf participants, suggesting that deaf individuals use spatial information to infer temporal environmental coordinates.

Does Congenital Deafness Affect the Structural and Functional Architecture of Primary Visual Cortex?

Deafness results in greater reliance on the remaining senses. It is unknown whether the cortical architecture of the intact senses is optimized to compensate for lost input. Here we performed widefield population receptive field (pRF) mapping of primary visual cortex (V1) with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in hearing and congenitally deaf participants, all of whom had learnt sign language after the age of 10 years. We found larger pRFs encoding the peripheral visual field of deaf compared to hearing participants. This was likely driven by larger facilitatory center zones of the pRF profile concentrated in the near and far periphery in the deaf group. pRF density was comparable between groups, indicating pRFs overlapped more in the deaf group. This could suggest that a coarse coding strategy underlies enhanced peripheral visual skills in deaf people. Cortical thickness was also decreased in V1 in the deaf group. These findings suggest deafness causes structural and functional plasticity at the earliest stages of visual cortex.

Effects of attention and laterality on motion and orientation discrimination in deaf signers

Previous studies have asked whether visual sensitivity and attentional processing in deaf signers are enhanced or altered as a result of their different sensory experiences during development, i.e., auditory deprivation and exposure to a visual language. In particular, deaf and hearing signers have been shown to exhibit a right visual field/left hemisphere advantage for motion processing, while hearing nonsigners do not. To examine whether this finding extends to other aspects of visual processing, we compared deaf signers and hearing nonsigners on motion, form, and brightness discrimination tasks. Secondly, to examine whether hemispheric lateralities are affected by attention, we employed a dual-task paradigm to measure form and motion thresholds under "full" vs. "poor" attention conditions. Deaf signers, but not hearing nonsigners, exhibited a right visual field advantage for motion processing. This effect was also seen for form processing and not for the brightness task. Moreover, no group differences were observed in attentional effects, and the motion and form visual field asymmetries were not modulated by attention, suggesting they occur at early levels of sensory processing. In sum, the results show that processing of motion and form, believed to be mediated by dorsal and ventral visual pathways, respectively, are left-hemisphere dominant in deaf signers.

Hearing Shapes Our Perception of Time: Temporal Discrimination of Tactile Stimuli in Deaf People

Confronted with the loss of one type of sensory input, we compensate using information conveyed by other senses. However, losing one type of sensory information at specific developmental times may lead to deficits across all sensory modalities. We addressed the effect of auditory deprivation on the development of tactile abilities, taking into account changes occurring at the behavioral and cortical level. Congenitally deaf and hearing individuals performed two tactile tasks, the first requiring the discrimination of the temporal duration of touches and the second requiring the discrimination of their spatial length. Compared with hearing individuals, deaf individuals were impaired only in tactile temporal processing. To explore the neural substrate of this difference, we ran a TMS experiment. In deaf individuals, the auditory association cortex was involved in temporal and spatial tactile processing, with the same chronometry as the primary somatosensory cortex. In hearing participants, the involvement of auditory association cortex occurred at a later stage and selectively for temporal discrimination. The different chronometry in the recruitment of the auditory cortex in deaf individuals correlated with the tactile temporal impairment. Thus, early hearing experience seems to be crucial to develop an efficient temporal processing across modalities, suggesting that plasticity does not necessarily result in behavioral compensation.

Visual advantage in deaf adults linked to retinal changes

The altered sensory experience of profound early onset deafness provokes sometimes large scale neural reorganisations. In particular, auditory-visual cross-modal plasticity occurs, wherein redundant auditory cortex becomes recruited to vision. However, the effect of human deafness on neural structures involved in visual processing prior to the visual cortex has never been investigated, either in humans or animals. We investigated neural changes at the retina and optic nerve head in profoundly deaf (N = 14) and hearing (N = 15) adults using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), an in-vivo light interference method of quantifying retinal micro-structure. We compared retinal changes with behavioural results from the same deaf and hearing adults, measuring sensitivity in the peripheral visual field using Goldmann perimetry. Deaf adults had significantly larger neural rim areas, within the optic nerve head in comparison to hearing controls suggesting greater retinal ganglion cell number. Deaf adults also demonstrated significantly larger visual field areas (indicating greater peripheral sensitivity) than controls. Furthermore, neural rim area was significantly correlated with visual field area in both deaf and hearing adults. Deaf adults also showed a significantly different pattern of retinal nerve fibre layer (RNFL) distribution compared to controls. Significant correlations between the depth of the RNFL at the inferior-nasal peripapillary retina and the corresponding far temporal and superior temporal visual field areas (sensitivity) were found. Our results show that cross-modal plasticity after early onset deafness may not be limited to the sensory cortices, noting specific retinal adaptations in early onset deaf adults which are significantly correlated with peripheral vision sensitivity.

Deaf and hearing children: a comparison of peripheral vision development

This study investigated peripheral vision (at least 30° eccentric to fixation) development in profoundly deaf children without cochlear implantation, and compared this to age-matched hearing controls as well as to deaf and hearing adult data. Deaf and hearing children between the ages of 5 and 15 years were assessed using a new, specifically paediatric designed method of static perimetry. The deaf group (N = 25) were 14 females and 11 males, mean age 9.92 years (range 5-15 years). The hearing group (N = 64) were 34 females, 30 males, mean age 9.13 years (range 5-15 years). All participants had good visual acuity in both eyes (< 0.200 LogMAR). Accuracy of detection and reaction time to briefly presented LED stimuli of three light intensities, at eccentricities between 30° and 85° were measured while fixation was maintained to a central target. The study found reduced peripheral vision in deaf children between 5 and 10 years of age. Deaf children (aged 5-10 years) showed slower reaction times to all stimuli and reduced ability to detect and accurately report dim stimuli in the far periphery. Deaf children performed equally to hearing children aged 11-12 years. Deaf adolescents aged 13-15 years demonstrated faster reaction times to all peripheral stimuli in comparison to hearing controls. Adolescent results were consistent with deaf and hearing adult performances wherein deaf adults also showed significantly faster reaction times than hearing controls. Peripheral vision performance on this task was found to reach adult-like levels of maturity in deaf and hearing children, both in reaction time and accuracy of detection at the age of 11-12 years.

Visual skills and cross-modal plasticity in deaf readers: possible implications for acquiring meaning from print

Most research on reading skill acquisition in deaf individuals has been conducted from the perspective of a hearing child learning to read. This approach may limit our understanding of how a deaf child approaches the task of learning to read and successfully acquires reading skills. An alternative approach is to consider how the cognitive skills that a deaf child brings to the reading task may influence the route by which he or she achieves reading fluency. A review of the literature on visual spatial attention suggests that deaf individuals are more distracted by visual information in the parafovea and periphery. We discuss how this may have an influence upon the perceptual processing of written text in deaf students.

Deafness and visual enumeration: not all aspects of attention are modified by deafness

Previous studies have demonstrated that early deafness causes enhancements in peripheral visual attention. Here, we ask if this cross-modal plasticity of visual attention is accompanied by an increase in the number of objects that can be grasped at once. In a first experiment using an enumeration task, Deaf adult native signers and hearing non-signers performed comparably, suggesting that deafness does not enhance the number of objects one can attend to simultaneously. In a second experiment using the Multiple Object Tracking task, Deaf adult native signers and hearing non-signers also performed comparably when required to monitor several, distinct, moving targets among moving distractors. The results of these experiments suggest that deafness does not significantly alter the ability to allocate attention to several objects at once. Thus, early deafness does not enhance all facets of visual attention, but rather its effects are quite specific.

Which aspects of visual attention are changed by deafness? The case of the Attentional Network Test

The loss of one sensory modality can lead to a reorganization of the other intact sensory modalities. In the case of individuals who are born profoundly deaf, there is growing evidence of changes in visual functions. Specifically, deaf individuals demonstrate enhanced visual processing in the periphery, and in particular enhanced peripheral visual attention. To further characterize those aspects of visual attention that may be modified by deafness, deaf and hearing individuals were compared on the Attentional Network Test (ANT). The ANT was selected as it provides a measure of the efficiency of three neurally distinct subsystems of visual attention: alerting, orienting and executive control. The alerting measure refers to the efficiency with which a temporal cue is used to direct attention towards a target event, and the orienting measure is an indicator of the efficiency with which a spatial cue focuses attention upon that target's spatial location. The executive control measure, on the other hand, is an indicator of the amount of interference from peripheral flankers on processing that central target. In two separate experiments, deaf and hearing individuals displayed similar alerting and orienting abilities indicating comparable attention across populations. As predicted by enhanced peripheral attention, deaf subjects were found to have larger flanker interference effects than hearing subjects. These results indicate that not all aspects of visual attention are modified by early deafness, suggesting rather specific effects of cross-modal plasticity.

Do deaf individuals see better?

The possibility that, following early auditory deprivation, the remaining senses such as vision are enhanced has been met with much excitement. However, deaf individuals exhibit both better and worse visual skills than hearing controls. We show that, when deafness is considered to the exclusion of other confounds, enhancements in visual cognition are noted. The changes are not, however, widespread but are selective, limited, as we propose, to those aspects of vision that are attentionally demanding and would normally benefit from auditory-visual convergence. The behavioral changes are accompanied by a reorganization of multisensory areas, ranging from higher-order cortex to early cortical areas, highlighting cross-modal interactions as a fundamental feature of brain organization and cognitive processing.

The effect of congenital deafness on duration judgment

OBJECTIVE

Congenital deafness provides the opportunity to study how atypical sensory and language experiences affect different aspects of information processing, e.g., time perception.

METHODS

Using two methods of temporal estimation, reproduction (Exp. 1) and production (Exp. 2), the effect of deafness on duration judgment was investigated within a time domain of a few seconds. We examined 16 congenitally deaf adolescents, aged between 16 and 19 years, and 16 normally hearing subjects, matched for gender and age. In Exp. 1 subjects were asked to reproduce durations from 1 to 5.5 s, whereas in Exp. 2 they produced durations from 1 to 6 s.

RESULTS

The results showed that in both experiments, the region of accurate estimation was significantly limited in deaf individuals, compared to normal hearing ones. Deaf adolescents judged accurately only intervals around 3 s, whereas they overestimated standards shorter than 2 s and underestimated those above 3 s. In contrast, controls correctly estimated the majority of standards applied in both experiments, with the exception of underreproduction of intervals longer than 3 s (Exp. 1).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of deafness on the accuracy of duration judgment can be linked to differences in the use of conventional time units, applied strategy as well as cognitive processes such as attention or working memory.

Sensory temporal processing in adults with early hearing loss

This study examined tactile and visual temporal processing in adults with early loss of hearing. The tactile task consisted of punctate stimulations that were delivered to one or both hands by a mechanical tactile stimulator. Pairs of light emitting diodes were presented on a display for visual stimulation. Responses consisted of YES or NO judgments as to whether the onset of the pairs of stimuli was perceived simultaneously or non-simultaneously. Tactile and visual temporal thresholds were significantly higher for the deaf group when compared to controls. In contrast to controls, tactile and visual temporal thresholds for the deaf group did not differ when presentation locations were examined. Overall findings of this study support the notion that temporal processing is compromised following early deafness regardless of the spatial location in which the stimuli are presented.

Motion velocity thresholds in deaf signers: changes in lateralization but not in overall sensitivity

In a series of three experiments, we tested whether deaf native signers process motion velocity information differently from hearing nonsigners. In Experiment 1, participants watched radially moving dots and were asked to detect the quadrant in which the velocity of the dots had changed. Similar 79% thresholds were observed in the two populations. In Experiments 2 and 3, peripheral and central thresholds were assessed separately as previous studies suggest early deafness leads mainly to changes in the processing of visual peripheral information. Neither condition produced an overall population difference. These negative results were not due to a lack of sensitivity in our experiments. Indeed, as has been previously reported, deaf native signers exhibited better thresholds in the right than in the left visual field, whereas the opposite pattern was observed in the hearing. This effect appears triggered by experience with American Sign Language (ASL) rather than deafness per se. Overall, this study confirms that early deafness does not enhance motion processing, and suggests that most of the changes previously described in the literature are instead attributable to changes in attention, and possibly special alterations of attention-to-motion processes.

Children's search for targets located within and beyond the field of view: effects of deafness and age

The localisation time of visual targets within and beyond the field of view and the relative timing of the onsets of eye and head movements were examined in deaf and hearing children of two age groups: 5-7 years and 10-12 years. Compared to their hearing peers, the deaf children showed more often a mode of eye-head coordination in which the head leads the eye. The discrepancy between the onsets of eye and head movements were greater for the younger than for the older groups. Furthermore, the deaf children took more time than the hearing children to localise the targets; especially the young deaf differed from their hearing contemporaries. These findings support the view that during development the differences in visual search between deaf and hearing children decrease. The results are discussed in the context of a distinction between representational and sensorimotor control of eye-head responses.

Changes in the spatial distribution of visual attention after early deafness

There is much anecdotal suggestion of improved visual skills in congenitally deaf individuals. However, this claim has only been met by mixed results from careful investigations of visual skills in deaf individuals. Psychophysical assessments of visual functions have failed, for the most part, to validate the view of enhanced visual skills after deafness. Only a few studies have shown an advantage for deaf individuals in visual tasks. Interestingly, all of these studies share the requirement that participants process visual information in their peripheral visual field under demanding conditions of attention. This work has led us to propose that congenital auditory deprivation alters the gradient of visual attention from central to peripheral field by enhancing peripheral processing. This hypothesis was tested by adapting a search task from Lavie and colleagues in which the interference from distracting information on the search task provides a measure of attentional resources. These authors have established that during an easy central search for a target, any surplus attention remaining will involuntarily process a peripheral distractor that the subject has been instructed to ignore. Attentional resources can be measured by adjusting the difficulty of the search task to the point at which no surplus resources are available for the distractor. Through modification of this paradigm, central and peripheral attentional resources were compared in deaf and hearing individuals. Deaf individuals possessed greater attentional resources in the periphery but less in the center when compared to hearing individuals. Furthermore, based on results from native hearing signers, it was shown that sign language alone could not be responsible for these changes. We conclude that auditory deprivation from birth leads to compensatory changes within the visual system that enhance attentional processing of the peripheral visual field.

The effects of spatial attention on motion processing in deaf signers, hearing signers, and hearing nonsigners

Visual abilities in deaf individuals may be altered as a result of auditory deprivation and/or because the deaf rely heavily on a sign language (American Sign Language, or ASL). In this study, we asked whether attentional abilities of deaf subjects are altered. Using a direction of motion discrimination task in the periphery, we investigated three aspects of spatial attention: orienting of attention, divided attention, and selective attention. To separate influences of auditory deprivation and sign language experience, we compared three subject groups: deaf and hearing native signers of ASL and hearing nonsigners. To investigate the ability to orient attention, we compared motion thresholds obtained with and without a valid spatial precue, with the notion that subjects orient to the stimulus prior to its appearance when a precue is presented. Results suggest a slight advantage for deaf subjects in the ability to orient spatial attention. To investigate divided attention, we compared motion thresholds obtained when a single motion target was presented to thresholds obtained when the motion target was presented among confusable distractors. The effect of adding distractors was found to be identical across subject groups, suggesting that attentional capacity is not altered in deaf subjects. Finally, to investigate selective attention, we compared performance for a single, cued motion target with that of a cued motion target presented among distractors. Here, deaf, but not hearing, subjects performed better when the motion target was presented among distractors than when it was presented alone, suggesting that deaf subjects are more affected by the presence of distractors. In sum, our results suggest that attentional orienting and selective attention are altered in the deaf and that these effects are most likely due to auditory deprivation as opposed to sign language experience.

Cross-modal plasticity: where and how?

Animal studies have shown that sensory deprivation in one modality can have striking effects on the development of the remaining modalities. Although recent studies of deaf and blind humans have also provided convincing behavioural, electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence of increased capabilities and altered organization of spared modalities, there is still much debate about the identity of the brain systems that are changed and the mechanisms that mediate these changes. Plastic changes across brain systems and related behaviours vary as a function of the timing and the nature of changes in experience. This specificity must be understood in the context of differences in the maturation rates and timing of the associated critical periods, differences in patterns of transiently existing connections, and differences in molecular factors across brain systems.

Visual contrast sensitivity in deaf versus hearing populations: exploring the perceptual consequences of auditory deprivation and experience with a visual language

Early deafness in humans provides a unique opportunity to examine the perceptual consequences of altered sensory experience. In particular, visual perception in the deaf may be altered as a result of their auditory deprivation and/or because the deaf rely heavily upon a visual language (American Sign Language, or ASL, in the US). Recently, we found that deaf, but not hearing, subjects exhibit a right visual field/left hemisphere advantage on a low-level direction of motion task, a finding that has been attributed to the deaf's experience with ASL [Psychol. Sci. 10 (1999) 256; Brain Res. 405 (1987) 268]. In order to determine whether this visual field asymmetry generalizes to other low-level visual functions, in this study we measured contrast sensitivity in deaf and hearing subjects to moving stimuli over a range of speeds (0.125-64 degrees /s). We hypothesized that if ASL use drives differences between hearing and deaf subjects, such differences may occur over a restricted range of speeds most commonly found in ASL. In addition, we tested a third group, hearing native signers who learned ASL early from their deaf parents, to further assess whether potential differences between groups results from ASL use. These experiments reveal no overall differences in contrast sensitivity, nor differences in visual field asymmetries, across subject groups at any speed tested. Thus, differences previously observed between deaf and hearing subjects for discriminating the direction of moving stimuli do not generalize to contrast sensitivity for moving stimuli, a result that has implications for the neural level at which plastic changes occur in the visual system of deaf subjects.

Reinforcer control and human signal-detection performance

Eight humans participated in a two-choice signal-detection task in which stimulus disparity was varied over four levels. Two procedures arranged asymmetrical numbers of reinforcers received for correct left- and right-key responses (the reinforcer ratio). The controlled procedure ensured that the obtained reinforcer ratio remained constant over changes in stimulus disparity, irrespective of subjects' performances. In the uncontrolled procedure, the asymmetrical reinforcer ratio could covary with subjects' performances. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) patterns obtained from the controlled procedure approximated isobias functions predicted by criterion location measures of bias. The uncontrolled procedure produced variable ROC patterns that were somewhat like the isobias predictions made by likelihood ratio measures of bias; however, the obtained reinforcer ratio became more extreme as discriminability decreased. The obtained pattern of bias was directly related to the obtained reinforcer ratio. This research indicates that criterion location measures seem to be preferable indices of response bias.

Latency of head movements of normal hearing and auditorially handicapped children

19 auditory handicapped and 19 hearing children (4- to 12-yr.-old) were compared for performance on a visual localization task during which visual stimuli were presented both within and beyond the initial field of view. In the latter situations the localization response depends, initially on a cognitive map of the surrounding environment. The youngest group (4- and 5-yr.-old) of auditorially handicapped children showed, relative to their nondeaf peers, slower latencies of head movements to stimuli beyond their initial field of view. This finding is interpreted as these subjects having at their disposal a less precise, less adequate, cognitive map of the environment, possibly arising from a disturbed crossmodal integration as a consequence of the absence of auditory input.

Temporal auditory acuity in blind and sighted subjects: a signal detection analysis

Temporal auditory sensitivity was compared in five adventitiously blind and five normally sighted subjects in a signal-detection paradigm. Following determination of individual auditory flutter fusion (AFF) thresholds the subjects were required to make forced-choice responses between a fluttering and fused white noise under stimulus probabilities of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75. From these data indices of sensory sensitivity (d') and response bias (Beta) were computed and compared. Analysis indicated no significant differences in auditory sensitivity between the two groups. These findings further weaken the traditional hypothesis of sensory compensation.