Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
While a substantial body of work has suggested that deafness brings about an increased allocation of visual attention to the periphery there has been much less work on how using a signed language may also influence this attentional allocation. Signed languages are visual-gestural and produced using the body and perceived via the human visual system. Signers fixate upon the face of interlocutors and do not directly look at the hands moving in the inferior visual field. It is therefore reasonable to predict that signed languages require a redistribution of covert visual attention to the inferior visual field. Here we report a prospective and statistically powered assessment of the spatial distribution of attention to inferior and superior visual fields in signers - both deaf and hearing - in a visual search task. Using a Bayesian Hierarchical Drift Diffusion Model, we estimated decision making parameters for the superior and inferior visual field in deaf signers, hearing signers and hearing non-signers. Results indicated a greater attentional redistribution toward the inferior visual field in adult signers (both deaf and hearing) than in hearing sign-naïve adults. The effect was smaller for hearing signers than for deaf signers, suggestive of either a role for extent of exposure or greater plasticity of the visual system in the deaf. The data provide support for a process by which the demands of linguistic processing can influence the human attentional system.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.026 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!