Is Visual Selective Attention in Deaf Individuals

Enhanced or Deficient? The Case of the Useful Field of

View
Matthew W. G. Dye1*, Peter C. Hauser2, Daphne Bavelier1
1 Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States of America, 2 Department of Research and Teacher Education,
National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, United States of America

Abstract
Background: Early deafness leads to enhanced attention in the visual periphery. Yet, whether this enhancement confers
advantages in everyday life remains unknown, as deaf individuals have been shown to be more distracted by irrelevant
information in the periphery than their hearing peers. Here, we show that, in a complex attentional task, a performance
advantage results for deaf individuals.

Methodology/Principal Findings: We employed the Useful Field of View (UFOV) which requires central target identification
concurrent with peripheral target localization in the presence of distractors – a divided, selective attention task. First, the
comparison of deaf and hearing adults with or without sign language skills establishes that deafness and not sign language
use drives UFOV enhancement. Second, UFOV performance was enhanced in deaf children, but only after 11 years of age.

Conclusions/Significance: This work demonstrates that, following early auditory deprivation, visual attention resources
toward the periphery slowly get augmented to eventually result in a clear behavioral advantage by pre-adolescence on a
selective visual attention task.

Citation: Dye MWG, Hauser PC, Bavelier D (2009) Is Visual Selective Attention in Deaf Individuals Enhanced or Deficient? The Case of the Useful Field of View. PLoS
ONE 4(5): e5640. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640
Editor: Chris I. Baker, National Institute of Mental Health, United States of America
Received January 22, 2009; Accepted April 20, 2009; Published May 20, 2009
Copyright: ß 2009 Dye et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by grants from the John F. Merck Foundation and NIDCD to DB, and from the Visual Language and Learning NSF Science and
Learning Center to PH. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: mdye@bcs.rochester.edu

Introduction their deaf peers by irrelevant information occurring in central

vision. Yet, greater distractibility from peripheral events can be
Several studies have demonstrated that early auditory depriva- disruptive when focusing centrally is required [13]. Accordingly,
tion (deafness) results in specific, compensatory changes in visual deaf children perform worse on the Gordon Diagnostic SystemH, a
processing. In particular, deaf individuals exhibit enhanced continuous performance task which measures the ability to select a
performance for tasks performed in the visual periphery. sequence of targets from a stream of items presented in central
Accordingly deaf individuals asked to make a key press in response vision [14–15]. In accordance with a deficiency hypothesis, deaf
to stimuli presented in the central or peripheral visual field, exhibit children are rated more distractible than their hearing peers by
faster RTs than hearing individuals for peripheral targets but not parents and educators, although the correlation between these
for central ones [1–3]. Similarly, when required to indicate the ratings is often low [16]. Based on these findings, it has been
presence of a point of light moving from the periphery towards argued that auditory deprivation results in deficient visual selective
fixation, they respond more accurately than hearing individuals attention, with deaf individuals being unable to differentiate task-
when the target is further away from fixation [4]. Brain imaging relevant from task-irrelevant information [16]. In contrast, as we
studies using ERP or fMRI suggest a greater recruitment of explore here, deaf individuals may excel on tasks that require
attention-related brain networks under peripheral tasks in deaf as differentiating task-relevant from task-irrelevant information when
compared to hearing individuals [5–9]. this selection relies on peripheral visual attention.
Whether this enhancement confers advantages when it comes to The performance of deaf and hearing individuals on a
more complex visual tasks is, as yet, unknown. We consider here computerized adaptation of the Useful Field of View task (UFOV;
the possibility that enhanced peripheral attention may result in [17–18]) was evaluated. In this task, subjects are required to
better or worse performance depending upon the task demands. identify a central target and localize a concurrent peripheral target
Deaf individuals are more distracted than their hearing peers by in the presence of distractors. Performance on the UFOV – which
irrelevant information occurring in the visual periphery [10–12]. is predictive of complex, real-world performance [19] – provides a
This effect is not the mark of a deficient focus of attention in deaf measure of how visual selective attention is distributed across a
individuals – indeed, hearing individuals are more distracted than scene when attention has to be allocated across central and

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 May 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 5 | e5640

 Visual Attention and Deafness

Figure 1. A Schematic of Useful Field of View Task. In the experimental UFOV task, participants were asked to discriminate a briefly presented
face in the center of the display – the cutaways show detail of the ‘short hair’ and ‘long hair’ faces – and to indicate the location of a peripheral target
(a five-pointed star in a circle) via a touch screen. B Useful Field of View Thresholds, Experiment 1. Performance (mean threshold is ms) of each
subject group on the experimental UFOV task; error bars indicate 61 SEM.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640.g001

peripheral locations and targets selected from within a field of Design

distractors. If early auditory deprivation enhances visual selective Each subject was assessed using a modification of the UFOV
attention resources in the periphery, rather than simply increasing paradigm [17–18], which incorporated two training tasks and the
peripheral distractibility, then deaf individuals should be better main experimental task (see Figure 1A) administered in the
able to localize a peripheral target embedded in a field of following order: (i) central stimulus identification training: a two-
distractors while simultaneously discriminating the identity of a alternative forced choice (2-AFC) identification task at the center
target presented centrally at fixation. Alternatively, if auditory of the visual field – a face icon subtending 2.0 degrees of visual
deprivation results in deficient visual selective attention, deaf angle was presented in the center of the screen and participants
individuals’ performance on the UFOV task should be impaired had to decide whether it had long (0.27 degrees of visual angle) or
relative to that of hearing individuals. short (0.16 degrees of visual angle) hair (Movie S1); (ii) divided
The majority of studies reporting enhancement of visual attention training task: the same 2-AFC central identification task
attention to the periphery have recruited deaf individuals born combined with the localization of a peripheral target (again
deaf to deaf parents who learned American Sign Language (ASL) subtending 2.0 degrees of visual angle) presented in isolation at
as a first language. This leaves open the possibility that 20u of visual angle at one of eight possible cardinal/intercardinal
enhancements in attention are restricted to this sub-population locations (Movie S2); and (iii) the UFOV experimental task, also
and do not generalize to the deaf population at large. This is of termed selective attention task by Ball and collaborators [17–18]:
concern as most studies reporting deficient visual attention have the 2-AFC central identification task with localization of a
focused on deaf non-signers. Therefore, in addition to recruiting peripheral target always presented at 20u of visual angle at one
deaf native signers, we included deaf individuals who experienced of eight possible cardinal/intercardinal locations and embedded in
early auditory deprivation but did not learn a sign language. In a field of 27 distractors each subtending 2.0 degrees of visual angle
addition, the impact of sign language was further evaluated using (Movie S3). The distractors appeared along each of the eight
hearing subjects, born to deaf parents, who acquired ASL as a first possible cardinal/intercardinal axes at 6.67, 13.33 and 20 degrees
language. Some of the studies referenced above have included of visual angle (see Figure 1A). The peripheral target was a five-
hearing native signers, and have suggested that sign language use is pointed star enclosed within a circle, and the distractors were
not sufficient to induce enhanced peripheral attention [20–22]. white line-drawings of squares isoluminant with the peripheral
The possibility remains, however, that a combination of early target.
auditory deprivation and visual-manual language acquisition are All three tasks were presented within a circular gray field
required to bring about the observed changes in peripheral subtending 21u of visual angle. Each stimulus display was followed
attention in deaf native signers. The inclusion of both hearing by a visual noise mask presented on the whole screen and then a
signers and deaf non-signers allows, for the first time, an prompt appearing at fixation. Participants indicated their response
assessment of the effects of auditory deprivation and sign language (in speech or sign) for the central task, and the experimenter
use independently, as well as their potential interaction. manually entered that response. For the peripheral localization
response, participants touched the screen at the location where
Materials and Methods they believed the peripheral target to have appeared. Trials were
classified as correct if the subject accurately identified both the
Ethics Statement central icon’s identity and the location of the peripheral target (in
This research was approved by the Research Subjects Review the first task, only central task performance applied). An adaptive
Board at the University of Rochester, NY. staircase procedure was employed for all three tasks – after three

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 May 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 5 | e5640

 Visual Attention and Deafness

consecutive correct responses, the stimulus duration was reduced loss in the better ear was 90 dB with a range of 75–110 dB).
by 1 frame (1/60 second); one incorrect response resulted in the Although most reported knowing some ASL, their first regular
stimulus duration being increased by 1 frame. Each task finished exposure to ASL had been at NTID where they were recruited for
after twelve reversals, ten consecutive correct trials at ceiling (1 this study during their first quarter in order to limit that exposure.
frame), or 72 trials, whichever occurred sooner. A threshold Accordingly, they reported an inability to communicate clearly in
measure was calculated by averaging the stimulus duration of the ASL (on average rating themselves 3.3 in ASL comprehension and
last 10 correct trials. In the divided attention training and the 3.2 in ASL production). All deaf non-signing subjects preferred
UFOV tasks – which required both central and peripheral testing to be conducted using spoken English.
responses – trials where the central target was incorrectly identified Hearing adult signers born to deaf parents (N = 10,
were ignored (i.e. those trials were not used for computing step MAGE = 22.9, 4 males) were recruited from a summer camp for
changes in the adaptive staircase procedure). KODAs (‘kids of deaf adults’) in Eagle Bay, NY. All reported
learning ASL from their parents as infants, and expressed
Apparatus competence in ASL (on average rating themselves 1.8 in ASL
Stimuli were presented using Matlab software and the comprehension and 1.8 in ASL production). None reported any
Psychophysics Toolbox installed on a Apple G4 Titanium laptop hearing loss, and all testing was conducted in ASL.
computer running OS 9.2.2. The laptop was connected to a 230 Hearing adult non-signers (N = 10, MAGE = 20.4, 2 males) were
Apple Cinema Display via an Apple ADC-DVI adaptor, with a recruited from a participant pool at the University of Rochester,
60 Hz refresh rate. The display was adapted to function as a touch NY. All reported normal hearing and no knowledge of any sign
screen using pressure-sensitive resistive (PSR-1H) technology, language.
supplied and fitted by Troll Touch Touchscreens (Valencia, CA). Prior to analyzing the UFOV thresholds for the selective
attention task (i.e. the task with distractors) it was important to
Procedure establish that the central task was attentionally demanding in this
Subjects were tested in a single experimental session lasting context, and thus in competition with the peripheral target for
approximately 25–30 minutes. Subjects were in a chin rest, attentional resources. While this task provided no independent,
positioned 40 centimeters from the center of the touch screen. concurrent measure of central task performance, identification
Instructions were given in sign or speech and clarified if necessary. accuracy was calculated for the last 1/3 of trials for all subjects (see
Subjects were given the correct answer on the first 2–3 trials if they Table S1). Due to differences in level of performance – these trials
still appeared to be confused. for deaf subjects were performed at briefer presentation durations
than for hearing subjects –identification accuracies were normal-
Results and Discussion ized as a function of the presentation duration for those trials to
yield a measure of central task accuracy per millisecond of
All statistical tests were conducted with an a = .05. Confidence presentation duration. Deaf subjects (M = 1.46% per millisecond)
intervals for differences between group means (CI95diff) are and hearing subjects (M = 1.25% per millisecond) did not
reported alongside statistical test results and estimates of effect significantly differ using this measure. The data therefore suggest
size (partial g2). that the central task was attentionally demanding for both deaf
and hearing subjects, and that it was equally demanding for both
Experiment 1: Effects of Deafness and Sign Language groups.
Experience on the Useful Field of View in Adults UFOV thresholds (i.e. with distractors present) were entered
Potential adult subjects were asked about their videogame into a two-way ANOVA with auditory deprivation (deaf, hearing)
playing. Those who reported playing action-based videogames and signing (signer, non-signer) as between subjects factors (see
were classified as ‘game players’. This classification did not Figure 1B). This revealed a main effect of auditory deprivation
influence enrollment into the study, although data from ‘game (F(1,36) = 11.46, p = .002, partial g2 = .24, CI95diff = 8–30 ms).
players’ are not reported here as it is known that action video Deaf subjects demonstrated a clear advantage over hearing
gaming changes performance on the UFOV [23–24]. Subjects subjects, requiring less time to concurrently discriminate a central
were paid $8 for their participation. target and localize a peripheral target embedded within a field of
Deaf adult signers (N = 10, MAGE = 26.1, 2 males) were distractors. An effect of sign language use was not predicted, and
recruited at a school in Austin (TX) and at a camp in Madison although a trend can be seen for sign language users to have lower
(SD), as well as from participant pools at RIT/NTID (NY) and thresholds than non-signers, the effect was much smaller and not
Gallaudet University (DC). All were deaf native signers who statistically significant (F(1,36) = 3.02, p = .091, partial g2 = .08,
reported being born with severe-profound auditory deprivation CI95diff = 2–21 ms). There was no significant interaction between
(hearing loss .75 dB in the better ear; for 5 deaf signers who knew auditory deprivation and signing (F(1,36) = 0.18, p = .677, partial
their exact level of hearing loss, mean loss in the better ear was g2 = .01) confirming the primary role of auditory deprivation in
107 dB with a range of 75–120 dB) to deaf parents from whom the advantage noted in the deaf population.
they learned ASL as a first language. In the absence of a reliable Although the two other tasks (central stimulus identification and
and easily administered ASL proficiency test, subjects were asked divided attention) were included for training purposes, deaf non-
to rate their ASL comprehension and production proficiency on a signer participants differed from the other groups in a manner
scale from 1 = perfect to 4 = hardly. All deaf signers gave worthy of note (Figure 2A and 2B). On both tasks, all participants
themselves a rating of 1.0 in ASL comprehension and 1.0 in performed near ceiling except for deaf non-signers (central
ASL production. identification task: effect of auditory deprivation: F(1,36) = 12.51,
Deaf adult non-signers (N = 10, MAGE = 21.6, 3 males) were p = .001, partial g2 = .26, CI95diff = 2–6 ms; effect of signing:
students recruited at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf F(1,36) = 9.52, p = .004, partial g2 = .21, CI95diff = 1–6 ms; inter-
(NTID) in Rochester, NY. All reported being born with severe- action between auditory deprivation and signing: F(1,36) = 6.94,
profound auditory deprivation (.75 DB in the better ear; for 6 p = .012, partial g2 = .16; divided attention task: effect of auditory
deaf non-signers who knew their exact level of hearing loss, mean deprivation: F(1,36) = 41.40, p,.001, partial g2 = .54, CI95diff

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 May 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 5 | e5640

 Visual Attention and Deafness

Figure 2. Useful Field of View Training Thresholds, Experiment 1. Performance on the central training task (A) and central and abrupt
peripheral onset training task (B) was generally asymptotic, except for deaf adults who did not use a signed language. For this group, the thresholds
on these two tasks were significantly elevated. Error bars indicate 61 SEM.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640.g002

= 3–7 ms; effect of signing: (F(1,36) = 31.25, p,.001, partial g2 = .47, There are two alternative mechanisms that can be ruled out by
CI95diff = 3–6 ms; interaction between auditory deprivation and the overall pattern of data reported. The first is that any deficits
signing: F(1,36) = 33.65, p,.001, partial g2 = .48). Deaf non-signers observed for deaf individuals stem from the need to make
performed significantly worse on both of these tasks, albeit still sequential manual responses (sign SHORT or LONG and then
requiring less than 33 milliseconds of presentation. This is in accord touch the screen) whereas hearing individuals can make a
with reports from Quittner and colleagues [14–15] that deaf simultaneous oral-manual response (say ‘‘short’’ or ‘‘long’’ while
individuals, or at least children, who do not receive full access to touching the screen at the same time). If this were the case, then
language at an early age are at risk on tasks that require attention to there should be a deficit for deaf signers across all tasks requiring
the location of fixation. two responses, which is clearly not the case. Despite the need to
UFOV thresholds were reanalyzed with each subject’s perfor- execute sequential responses for the two tasks, deaf signers
mance on these training tasks as covariates. The pattern of findings outperform hearing subjects on the UFOV task, and show
did not change, with the main effect of auditory deprivation comparable performance on the divided attention task. Indeed,
remaining the sole significant effect (F(1,34) = 6.21, p = .018, the deaf non-signers who performed poorly on the divided
partial g2 = .15, CI95diff = 4–39 ms). attention task made simultaneous oral and manual responses to
This first experiment establishes the role of auditory deprivation the targets. The second alternative is a perceptual enhancement in
in the enhancement of peripheral visual attention noted in the deaf the peripheral visual field of deaf individuals. Such an enhance-
population. Both deaf signing and deaf non-signing adults excelled ment would predict enhanced performance on the divided
at the UFOV task. This shows that the enhancement is not limited attention task for all deaf individuals. To the contrary, deaf non-
to the use of isolated targets but generalizes to complex tasks such signers showed impaired performance on the divided attention
as the UFOV, which combines selective visual attention with the task and deaf signers showed similar performance as their hearing
requirements of performing two tasks (one centrally and the other peers. This pattern of finding reinforces the view that peripheral
peripherally). Although deaf non-signers displayed better perfor- processing enhancements in deaf individuals result from changes
mance on the UFOV task than their hearing peers, they showed in selective attention, and not perceptual modifications [26].
worse performance on the central stimulus identification and In Experiment 2 we ask at what age such a redistribution of
divided attention tasks. This result is surprising in the face of their attention becomes apparent in a sample of deaf children compared
enhanced performance on the UFOV task. The two training tasks to a group of hearing peers 7 to 17 years of age. Deaf children
differ from the main UFOV task along several dimensions were recruited from a camp and deaf school where ASL was the
preventing us from drawing firm conclusions. The central primary means of communication. The experimental design,
identification task focuses entirely on central processing, rather apparatus and procedure were the same as those employed in
than peripheral processing in the context of an additional central Experiment 1. Previous studies suggest that visual selective
task like in the UFOV task. The divided attention task requires attention skills are relatively stable in hearing subjects by 7–10
both peripheral and central processing in the same manner as for years of age [27], so no change in the UFOV thresholds was
the UFOV task, but it differs from the UFOV task in terms of its expected in the hearing children as a function of age. By assessing
very low attentional load [25]; the divided attention task allows the effect of age on UFOV thresholds in deaf children, we aimed
both the central and peripheral target to automatically capture to determine whether the effects of auditory deprivation on visual
attention. In addition both these training tasks differ from the selective attention were already in place by the age of 7 years, or
UFOV task in the brevity of the display duration (stimulus display whether the period of development is protracted.
durations for the two training tasks were in the range of 17–33 ms,
as compared to 40–80 ms for UFOV task). The reported results Experiment 2: Effects of Deafness on the Useful Field of
indicate the need for future studies to characterize the relative role View in Deaf and Hearing Schoolchildren
of central processing, attentional load and display duration when Written informed consent was obtained from all children and a
considering the attentional system of deaf non-signers. parent or legal guardian. All children were rewarded with a $15

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 May 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 5 | e5640

 Visual Attention and Deafness

most of the deaf children had IEPs as a result of their deafness,

none had reported attentional problems or learning disabilities.
The deaf children divided into the same age categories as hearing
children: 7–10 year olds (N = 15, MAGE = 9;3, 10 males), 11–13
year olds (N = 20, MAGE = 12;4, 1 male), and 14–17 year olds
(N = 14, MAGE = 15;6, 7 males). All had an unaided hearing loss
.70 dB in their better ear and used ASL on a daily basis as their
primary means of communication. None had undergone cochlear
implant surgery. Sixteen (33%) had hearing parents, although all
of these children had started to learn ASL in pre-K classes.
Parental hearing status had no effect on the measures used, and is
not considered further. Given their background, this group is more
similar to the native signers adults described above, and differs in
aetiology from the children typically considered in the literature on
deafness, visual attention and cochlear implants [14–16].
A two-way ANOVA on experimental UFOV thresholds with
Figure 3. Useful Field of View Thresholds, Experiment 2. In the
auditory deprivation (deaf, hearing) and age group (7–10, 11–13,
main UFOV task the performance of 7–10 year old deaf children was
comparable with that of their hearing peers, whereas older deaf 14–17 years) as between subjects factors revealed significant main
children were significantly better than their hearing peers. Error bars effects of auditory deprivation (F(1,117) = 17.85, p,.001, partial
indicate 61 SEM. g2 = .14, CI95diff = 11–31 ms) and age group (F(2,117) = 6.49,
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640.g003 p = .002, partial g2 = .11), and a significant two-way interaction
between auditory deprivation and age group (F(2,117) = 7.10,
gift card. As in Experiment 1, action video game players were p = .001, partial g2 = .11). This interaction led us to assess the
tested but their data are not reported here. effects of age group separately for deaf and hearing children. As
Hearing children were recruited from a school district in the predicted, for hearing children the UFOV thresholds did not vary
Rochester NY area. Mailings were sent from the school district to as a function of age group (F(2,68) = 0.12, p = .884, partial
parents of all children aged 7 to 17 years. The response rate was g2,.01), whereas they did for deaf children (F(2,49) = 25.43,
approximately 15%. All children had normal or corrected-to- p,.001, partial g2 = .53). While deaf 7–10 year olds performed
normal vision and no known history of neurological or cognitive equivalently to hearing 7–10 year olds, older deaf children
impairment. They were screened to ensure none required an demonstrated better thresholds, outperforming their hearing peers
Individualized Educational Program (IEP) indicating the need for and the youngest deaf children (see Figure 3).
accommodations due to learning or language impairment. Interestingly, the training tasks indicated worse performance in
Children were divided into three age categories: 7–10 year old the youngest deaf group compared to the other groups (see
elementary/primary students (N = 38, MAGE = 9;1, 16 males), 11– Figure 4). Post-hoc analyses for the central stimulus identification
13 year old middle school students (N = 16, MAGE = 12;2, 5 males), task showed no main effect of age group for hearing children
and 14–17 year old high school students (N = 14, MAGE = 15;7, 1 (F(2,68) = 2.26, p = .113, partial g2 = .07), but a significant effect
male). for deaf children (F(2,49) = 11.87, p,.001, partial g2 = .34). Deaf
Deaf children were recruited from deaf schools in Rochester NY 7–10 year olds had significantly worse thresholds than both 11–13
and Austin TX, and a camp for deaf children in Madison, SD. year olds (p,.001, CI95diff = 9–22 ms) and 14–17 year olds
School or camp administrators mailed letters to the parents of all (p = .001, CI95diff = 6–20 ms). Similarly, post-hoc analyses for the
children aged between 7 and 17 years, resulting in a 10% response divided attention task showed no significant main effect of age
rate. All children had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no group for hearing children (F(2,68) = 2.09, p = .132, partial
known history of neurological or cognitive impairment. Although g2 = .06), whereas it did significantly affect the performance of

Figure 4. Useful Field of View Training Thresholds, Experiment 2. On the two training tasks, the youngest deaf children (7–10 year olds)
performing significantly worse than their hearing peers. Across all age ranges tested, for both deaf and hearing samples, these children were the only
ones who did not perform near ceiling on these tasks.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640.g004

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 May 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 5 | e5640

 Visual Attention and Deafness

deaf children (F(2,49) = 7.17, p = .002, partial g2 = .24). As duration of deafness and level of schooling are confounded. For
observed for the central identification task, deaf 7–10 year olds now, the data provide evidence for a profound change in visual
had significantly worse thresholds than 11–13 (p = .001, CI95- selective attention in deaf children and adults, with robust effects
diff = 8–30 ms) and 14–17 year olds (p = .004, CI95diff = 6–29 ms). suggesting that the UFOV is a sensitive behavioral assay for
Using performance on the two training tasks as covariates did not further analysis of the causes and mechanisms of compensatory,
change the qualitative pattern of findings for the experimental cross-modal plasticity following early auditory deprivation.
UFOV task. There is some evidence that the youngest deaf children found
the central stimulus identification task to be more difficult than did
General Discussion their hearing peers, with this difficulty extending to the divided
The UFOV task requires subjects to divide attention between attention task. Data from deaf adults suggest that any such deficit
central and peripheral locations, while also selecting a target from is no longer apparent by adulthood, at least for those who have
amongst distractors. It is an attention-demanding task, requiring early and full access to a first language (deaf native signers). All of
not only central attention but also attention to the periphery and the young deaf children in this study had early language access
visual selection. Deaf adults required 43–58 ms (CI95%) of display through ASL, although the extent of their social and linguistic
presentation to perform at 79% correct, whereas hearing adults interactions with caregivers during early infancy cannot be
required significantly more time (CI95% = 60–79 ms). This assessed post hoc. It is important to note that studies reporting
enhancement reflects early, severe-profound loss of audition rather deficiencies in visual attention skills have typically used central
than use of a visual-spatial language – the effect was seen in both visual field tasks employing rapid stimulus presentations with
deaf signers and non-signers, with little-or-no contribution from young deaf children [14–15], and those reporting compensatory
signing. enhancements have used peripheral visual field tasks with deaf
Although a tendency for more effective visual search in deaf adults [2,4,10–12]. Thus the apparent discrepancy in the literature
than in hearing individuals has been reported [28], other studies may be due to cross-study differences in the age of subjects tested,
have failed to replicate the effect [29–30]. The present adaptation language history, and where in the visual field stimuli have been
of the UFOV task departs from these more standard visual search presented. For both deaf children under the age of 10 years and
tasks in several ways. First, while it maintains a requirement for deaf adults who have had delayed and impaired access to a first
visual selection, it also has a divided attention component where language, the present work highlights poorer performance on the
attention needs to be maintained centrally while also efficiently two training tasks alongside enhanced UFOV performance. The
allocated to the periphery. Auditory deprivation may thus enhance present design cannot distinguish between a possible central
the ability to deploy visual selective attention over a large field. processing disadvantage when attention is not heavily taxed or a
Second, the target to be selected needs to be localized rather than difficulty processing displays with very brief durations. Future
identified. The use of a touch screen ensures that localization research is needed to tease apart the relative role of central versus
information maps naturally onto a motor response, limiting the peripheral attentional demands and to evaluate processing of very
need to repackage the information as with a standard response brief displays in deaf individuals. This work, however, already
box. This makes for a very natural ‘‘where’’ task, in line with the highlights the importance of providing a strong language
proposal that dorsal visual functions are most likely to be enhanced environment early in development. By 11 years of age, the
following auditory deprivation [31]. These factors may account for performance of deaf native signers was equal to or better than
the sizeable advantage noted in the deaf population, revealed by their hearing peers on all tasks, whereas deaf non-signers still
both lower thresholds and smaller within-group variance. We exhibited a complex pattern of deficits and enhancements in
propose that the UFOV task data unambiguously make the case adulthood. Finally and most importantly, a robust advantage for
that auditory deprivation does not necessarily compromise visual all deaf populations was observed when the peripheral target had
selective attentional functions and can in fact result in enhanced to be selected from amongst distractors, paralleling findings
selection for stimuli presented peripherally. reported by others [33]. The addition of distractors changes the
Data from children revealed that this attentional enhancement task by requiring coupling of divided attention with efficient visual
is not observed until after 7–10 years of age, although the precise selective attention at the target location. It is under these
point within this age group could not be determined due to sample conditions – visual selective attention in the visual periphery –
size limitations. Nevertheless, there is the suggestion that a robust that deaf participants are seen to excel.
cross-modal enhancement in visual selective attention is not This work establishes that auditory deprivation is not a causal
observed until after several years of auditory loss. Further study is factor for attentional difficulties. All deaf individuals tested
required to identify exactly when and how this delayed performed at least as well and often significantly better than their
enhancement is brought about. The lack of improvement observed hearing peers on the UFOV measure, an attentionally-demanding
in hearing children suggests that maturational factors are unlikely task Worse performance in the youngest deaf children and those
to contribute. Rather, it may be the duration of auditory deaf adults with limited access to a natural language early in
deprivation that plays the key role, with over 7–10 years of development was noted under some conditions. While these results
auditory deprivation required for effects to be manifested are in line with previous work documenting attentional deficits in
behaviorally. Alternatively, it may reflect a ‘sleeper effect’ [32], deaf children, the present study makes it clear that such challenges
with significant neural changes occurring earlier in development, early in childhood are not predictive of deficient functioning as
but only manifesting themselves behaviorally at a later age. development proceeds.
Another possibility is that the reorganization of visual attention is
trigged by environmental stimuli. For example, the transition to Supporting Information
more formal and structured schooling environments around the
age of 8 years may place additional demands upon the visual Table S1 Central task performance in selective UFOV task. For
systems of deaf children. Assessment of this possibility will require the UFOV selective attention task, mean central identification
disentangling duration of deafness from educational experience; all accuracies and mean stimulus presentation durations were
of the children included in this study were born deaf and thus calculated based upon the last 1/3 of trials for each subject.

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 May 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 5 | e5640

 Visual Attention and Deafness

Accuracy levels indicate that the central task is attentionally Movie S3 The 2-AFC central discrimination task with localiza-
demanding for all subject groups. However, accuracy cannot be tion of a peripheral target presented at 20u of visual angle at one of
compared directly across groups, as presentation durations eight possible cardinal/intercardinal locations and embedded in a
differed. After normalizing accuracies as a function of presentation field of distractors. The distractors appeared along the eight
duration, performance did not significantly differ as a result of possible cardinal/intercardinal axes at 6.67, 13.33 and 20 degrees
deafness or sign language use. of visual angle.
Found at: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640.s001 (0.04 MB Found at: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640.s004 (0.52 MB
DOC) MOV)
Movie S1 Two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC) discrimination
Acknowledgments
task at the center of the visual field - a face icon was presented in
the center of the screen and participants had to decide whether it Thanks to Dara Baril and Wyatte Hall for help with data collection, and to
had long or short hair. the following for their enthusiastic participation in the study: the staff and
students of Texas School for the Deaf (Austin, TX), Camp Lakodia
Found at: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640.s002 (0.42 MB
(Madison, SD), Rochester School for the Deaf (Rochester, NY), Brighton
MOV) Central School District (Rochester, NY); and Camp Mark Seven (Eagle
Movie S2 The same 2-AFC central discrimination task as in Bay, NY). We would also like to thank our reviewers for their insightful
comments and help in improving the manuscript.
Movie S1, combined with the localization of a peripheral target
presented in isolation at 20u of visual angle at one of eight possible
cardinal/intercardinal locations Author Contributions
Found at: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005640.s003 (0.62 MB Conceived and designed the experiments: MWD DB. Performed the
MOV) experiments: MWD PCH. Analyzed the data: MWD. Wrote the paper:
MWD PCH DB.

References
1. Chen Q, Zhang M, Zhou X (2006) Effects of spatial distribution of attention 17. Ball KK, Beard BL, Roenker DL, Miller RL, Griggs DS (1988) Age and visual
during inhibition of return (IOR) on flanker interference in hearing and search: Expanding the useful field of view. J Opt Soc Am A 5: 2210–2219.
congenitally deaf people. Brain Res 1109: 117–127. 18. Edwards JD, Vance DE, Wadley VG, Cissell GM, Roenker DL, Ball KK (2005)
2. Loke WH, Song S (1991) Central and peripheral visual processing in hearing Reliability and validity of Useful Field of View test scores as administered by
and nonhearing individuals. Bull Psychon Soc 29: 437–440. personal computer. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 27: 529–543.
3. Nava E, Bottari D, Zampini M, Pavani F (2008) Visual temporal order judgment 19. Clay OJ, Wadley VG, Edwards JD, Roth DL, Roenker DL, et al. (2005)
in profoundly deaf individuals. Exp Brain Res 190: 179–188. Cumulative meta-analysis of the relationship between useful field of view and
4. Stevens C, Neville H (2006) Neuroplasticity as a double-edged sword: Deaf driving performance in older adults: Current and future implications. Optom
enhancements and dyslexic deficits in motion processing. J Cogn Neurosci 18: Vis Sci 82: 724–731.
701–714. 20. Bosworth RG, Dobkins KR (2002) Visual field asymmetries for motion
5. Bavelier D, Tomann A, Hutton C, Mitchell T, Corina D, et al. (2000) Visual processing in deaf and hearing signers. Brain Cogn 49: 170–181.
attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals. J Neurosci 21. Fine I, Finney EM, Boynton GM, Dobkins KR (2005) Comparing the effects of
20: RC93. auditory deprivation and sign language within the auditory and visual cortex.
6. Bavelier D, Brozinsky C, Tomann A, Mitchell T, Neville H, et al. (2001) Impact J Cogn Neurosci 17: 1621–1637.
of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral 22. Neville HJ, Lawson D (1987c) Attention to central and peripheral visual space in
organization for motion processing. J Neurosci 21: 8931–8942. a movement detection task. III. Separate effects of auditory deprivation and
7. Neville HJ, Lawson D (1987a) Attention to central and peripheral visual space in acquisition of a visual language. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 405: 284–294.
a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study. I. 23. Green CS, Bavelier D (2003) Action video game modifies visual selective
Normal hearing adults. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 405: 253–267. attention. Nature 423: 534–537.
8. Neville HJ, Lawson D (1987b) Attention to central and peripheral visual space in
24. Green CS, Bavelier D (2006) Effects of action video game playing on the spatial
a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study. II.
distribution of visual selective attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32:
Congenitally deaf adults. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 405: 268–283.
1465–1478.
9. Neville HJ, Schmidt AL, Kutas M (1983) Altered visual-evoked potentials in
25. Lavie N (2007) High perceptual load makes everybody equal: Eliminating
congenitally deaf adults. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 266: 127–132.
individual differences in distractibility with load. Psychol Sci 18: 377–381.
10. Dye MWG, Baril DE, Bavelier D (2007) Which aspects of visual attention are
changed by deafness? The case of the attentional network task. Neuropsycho- 26. Bavelier D, Dye MWG, Hauser PC (2006) Do deaf individuals see better?
logia 45: 1801–1811. Trends Cogn Sci 10: 512–518.
11. Proksch J, Bavelier D (2002) Changes in the spatial distribution of visual 27. Enns JT, Akhtar N (1989) A developmental study of filtering in visual attention.
attention after early deafness. J Cogn Neurosci 14: 687–701. Child Dev 60: 1188–1199.
12. Sladen DP, Tharpe AM, Ashmead DH, Wesley Grantham D, Chun MM (2005) 28. Stivalet P, Moreno Y, Richard J, Barraud P-A, Raphel C (1998) Differences in
Visual attention in deaf and normal hearing adults: Effects of stimulus visual search tasks between congenitally deaf and normally hearing adults. Brain
compatibility. J Speech Lang Hear Res 48: 1529–1537. Res Cogn Brain Res 6: 227–232.
13. Dye MWG, Hauser PC, Bavelier D (2008) Visual attention in deaf children and 29. Bosworth RG, Dobkins KR (2002) The effects of spatial attention on motion
adults: Implications for learning environments. In: Marschark M, Hauser PC, processing in deaf signers, hearing signers, and hearing nonsigners. Brain Cogn
eds. Deaf cognition: Foundations and outcomes. New York, NY: Oxford 49: 152–169.
University Press. pp 250–263. 30. Rettenbach R, Diller G, Sireteanu R (1999) Do deaf people see better? Texture
14. Quittner AL, Smith LB, Osberger MJ, Mitchell TV, Katz DB (1994) The segmentation and visual search compensate in adult but not in juvenile subjects.
impact of audition on the development of visual attention. Psychol Sci 5: J Cogn Neurosci 11: 560–583.
347–353. 31. Bavelier D, Neville HJ (2002) Cross-modal plasticity: Where and how? Nat Rev
15. Smith LB, Quittner AL, Osberger MJ, Miyamoto R (1998) Audition and visual Neurosci 3: 443–452.
attention: The developmental trajectory in deaf and hearing populations. Dev 32. Maurer D, Mondloch CM, Lewis TL (2007) Sleeper effects. Dev Sci 10: 40–47.
Psychol 34: 840–850. 33. Bosworth RG, Dobkins KR (2002) The effects of spatial attention on motion
16. Mitchell TV, Quittner AL (1996) Multimethod study of attention and behavior processing in deaf signers, hearing signers, and hearing nonsigners. Brain Cogn
problems in hearing-impaired children. J Clin Child Psychol 25: 83–96. 49: 152–169.

PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 May 2009 | Volume 4 | Issue 5 | e5640

View publication stats