Week 12: Encorporating inclusive design into our chosen scenario
I also found three journal articles on deaf individuals the role visual stimulation has on communication within and between these individuals:
Feasibility of a visual prosthesis for the deaf based on intracorticai microstimulation of the visual cortex (Bak, Schmick, Hambrecht, Kufta, O'Rourke, Vallabhanath, 1996) states:
"The concept of a cortical visual prosthesis for the blind is based on the fact that localized electrical stimulation of the human visual cortex can excite topographically mapped visual percepts called phosphenes...Repeated stimulation over a period of minutes produced a gradual decrease in phosphen brightness."
The journal article can be found here: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/119/2/507.full.pdf+html
Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: an event-related potential and behavioral study. II. Congenitally deaf adults (Neville and Lawson, 1986) states:
"By contrast, with attention to peripheral visual stimuli, event related brain potentialss from deaf subjects displayed attention-related increases that were several times larger than those from hearing Ss and different in scalp distribution."
The journal article for this can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271080&_user=62921&_pii=0006899387902964&_check=y&_origin=&_coverDate=10-Mar-1987&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlk-zSkWz&md5=2a24953e58b699f833e789c4be4df5cf/1-s2.0-0006899387902964-main.pdf
Effects of foveal stimulation on peripheral visual processing and laterality in deaf and hearing subjects (Reynolds, 1993) states:
" Deaf and hearing subjects were presented with peripheral target stimuli (simple geometric shapes) presented tachistoscopically to the left or right visual fields under four conditions of foveal stimulation: (a) no stimulus; (b) simple geometric shapes; (c) pictorial shapes (outline drawings); and (d) orthographic letters. Dependent measures were detection response latency and peripheral shape recognition (errors). With error data, hearing subjects showed a right field advantage under foveal conditions of no stimulus and simple shape stimulus, but a left field advantage with pictorial and letter foveal stimuli. Deaf subjects showed the opposite effect, with a left field advantage under foveal conditions of no stimulus and simple shape stimulus, but a right field advantage with pictorial and letter foveal stimuli."
The journal article can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1422967
These three extracts indicate that visual stimulation plays a huge part in enhancing communication within a partially/fully deaf individual. This aligns perfectly with our product and is an important factor to encorporate and consider when we are presenting our "client example" in week 13.
Until next time!
Feasibility of a visual prosthesis for the deaf based on intracorticai microstimulation of the visual cortex (Bak, Schmick, Hambrecht, Kufta, O'Rourke, Vallabhanath, 1996) states:
"The concept of a cortical visual prosthesis for the blind is based on the fact that localized electrical stimulation of the human visual cortex can excite topographically mapped visual percepts called phosphenes...Repeated stimulation over a period of minutes produced a gradual decrease in phosphen brightness."
The journal article can be found here: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/119/2/507.full.pdf+html
Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: an event-related potential and behavioral study. II. Congenitally deaf adults (Neville and Lawson, 1986) states:
"By contrast, with attention to peripheral visual stimuli, event related brain potentialss from deaf subjects displayed attention-related increases that were several times larger than those from hearing Ss and different in scalp distribution."
The journal article for this can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271080&_user=62921&_pii=0006899387902964&_check=y&_origin=&_coverDate=10-Mar-1987&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlk-zSkWz&md5=2a24953e58b699f833e789c4be4df5cf/1-s2.0-0006899387902964-main.pdf
Effects of foveal stimulation on peripheral visual processing and laterality in deaf and hearing subjects (Reynolds, 1993) states:
" Deaf and hearing subjects were presented with peripheral target stimuli (simple geometric shapes) presented tachistoscopically to the left or right visual fields under four conditions of foveal stimulation: (a) no stimulus; (b) simple geometric shapes; (c) pictorial shapes (outline drawings); and (d) orthographic letters. Dependent measures were detection response latency and peripheral shape recognition (errors). With error data, hearing subjects showed a right field advantage under foveal conditions of no stimulus and simple shape stimulus, but a left field advantage with pictorial and letter foveal stimuli. Deaf subjects showed the opposite effect, with a left field advantage under foveal conditions of no stimulus and simple shape stimulus, but a right field advantage with pictorial and letter foveal stimuli."
The journal article can be found here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1422967
These three extracts indicate that visual stimulation plays a huge part in enhancing communication within a partially/fully deaf individual. This aligns perfectly with our product and is an important factor to encorporate and consider when we are presenting our "client example" in week 13.
Until next time!
posted by Kahlia at
18:55
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home