Do blind people have better hearing levels than normal population (original) (raw)
Related papers
Research Journal of Health Sciences, 2019
This study aimed to report difference in audiometric hearing threshold values between blind and sighted persons. Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional study of blind and normally sighted students hearing thresholds. Two groups were formed experimental and control groups respectively, matched for age only. Audiometric threshold hearing values were obtained using an Audiometer in accordance with the modified Hughson-Westlake technique at frequencies of 0.5 to 4 kHz. The Pure Tone Average is the average value at these frequencies for the better ear. Results: Each group had 23 participants, mean threshold values for blind group was 17.45dB (95%CI: 16.59-18.30dB); while for the sighted group is 17.59dB (95%CI: 15.90-19.28dB). Overall, tests did not reveal a statistical significance even though normal sighted students had higher threshold values. Conclusion: The study did not reveal a difference between audiometric threshold values between sighted and blind persons.
Acta Physica Polonica A, 2012
The present work discusses results concerning sound perception obtained in selected auditory tasks, such as pitch discrimination and pitch-timbre categorization for blind and visually impaired subjects (children and teenagers). Listeners were divided into two age groups: 713 year olds and 1418 year olds. The study tested 20 individuals (8 congenitally blind and 12 visually impaired) and 20 sighted persons comprising reference groups. The timing of the experiments was as short as possible due to the fact that our listeners were children. To date, no study has described results of such experiments for blind/visually handicapped children and teenagers. It was shown that the performance of blind/visually impaired participants was not as good as that of blind adults in pitch discrimination and pitch-timbre categorization tasks. These results may have implications for the development of auditory training in orientation and mobility of young visually handicapped people.
1978
A battery of 26 auditory tests was given to groups of 30 blind, partially sighted, and sighted children. Primary factors defined by the tests corresponded closely to those previously found with a similar battery (Stankov & Horn, in press). Overall, the blind and sighted were equal on most of the abilities measured by the tests; however, differences could be observed if particular primaries were considered. Blind children performed better on tests measuring tonal memory but worse on tests of masking and rhythm. The partially sighted group demonstrated poorer performance than the other two groups; this was attributed to possible cognitive and/or personality problems in addition to those associated with reduced vision. Auditory abilities have been studied since the beginnings of experimental psychology, but two papers by Karlin (1941, 1942) can be viewed as landmarks for the approach to be adopted here. In these papers Karlin used the Thurstonian method of factor analysis in order to a...
Vision in the Hearing-Impaired: Enhanced or Deprived?
Neuro – Open Journal, 2019
By definition, the hearing-impaired lack one functioning sensory channel that transmits information to the brain. What effect does this have on the perceptual systems of the brain is the subject of the review. There are currently two hypotheses on this matter: The perceptual deficit hypothesis that states that lack of a functioning sensory input affects the development and maturation of other sensory channels and results in the impaired functioning of our senses. The second is the perceptual compensation hypothesis which states that when one sensory system is affected, the processing resources within the brain are reallocated to the other sensory system resulting in an enhancement of the other systems. This review is about both these hypotheses and attempts to answer the question if the hearing-impaired can really "see "better. We highlight the important findings from both these hypotheses and provide growing evidence for the perceptual compensation hypothesis.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 2008
Our purpose in this cross-sectional study with 1,598 adult clients who had intellectual disabilities was to obtain valid prevalences of sensory impairments and to identify associations. The diagnoses were made through ophthalmologic and audiometric assessments, applying WHO/IASSID definitions. Re-weighted prevalences were 5.0% (95% CI 3.9-6.2%) for the total adult population; 2.9% (1.9-4.1), less than 50 years; and 11.0% (7.9-14.7), 50 years and over. Apart from being 50 years of age and over, p ϭ .000, risk factors were more severe intellectual disability, p ϭ .0001, and Down syndrome, p ϭ .001. Results show that the risk of combined sensory impairment in this population is considerably increased compared with the general population. Part of the underlying conditions are treatable or can be rehabilitated. However, the complete diagnosis had been identified in only 12%. Recently, our research group reported the following valid population prevalences of visual and hearing impairments for adults with intellectual disabilities who were clients of Dutch service providers: visual impairment, 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.3-18.4); blindness, 5.0% (3.8-6.2); and hearing impairment, 30.3% (27.7-33.0), all diagnosed according to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria (Meuwese-Jongejeugd et al., 2006; Splunder, Stilma, Bernsen, & Evenhuis, 2006). These figures imply a considerably increased risk of sensory impairments. Prevalences of visual impairment and blindness both are 10 times higher compared with prevalences in the Dutch general population 55 years of age and over (Klaver, Wolfs, Vingerling, Hofman, & De Jong, 1998), and the prevalence of hearing impairment is two times higher compared with published prevalences in four general adult populations (Davis, 1989
2011
Background and Aims: Main feature of auditory processing abilities is temporal processing including temporal resolution, temporal ordering, temporal integration and temporal masking. Many studies have shown the superiority of blinds in temporal discrimination over sighted subjects. In this study, temporal processing was compared in congenital blind subjects with sighted controls via gap in noise test (GIN). Methods: This analytic-prescriptive non-invasive cohort study was conducted on 22 congenital blinds (11 males and 11 females) with a mean age of 26.22 years and 22 sighted control subjects (11 males and 11 females) with a mean age of 24.04 years with normal hearing in faculty of Rehabilitation Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Gap in noise test results, approximate threshold and percent of corrected answers, were obtained and then, were analyzed by Mann-Whitney non-parametric statistical test. Results: There was a significant difference in the approximate threshold and the percent of corrected answers between congenital blinds and sighted control subjects (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between males and females in this regard (p>0.05). Conclusion: Auditory temporal resolution ability, the lower approximate threshold and the more corrected answers in gap in noise, in blind subjects is better than the sighted control group and it might be related to the compensative neuroplasticity after visual deprivation.
Is visual perception of hearing-impaired children different from healthy children?
International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology, 2004
The purpose of this study was to evaluate visual perception of hearing-impaired children, and to determine their insufficiency in rehabilitation programs. Forty children with hearing impairment aged 8-10 years were evaluated, and were compared with age matched 40 healthy children. Children having 71 dB and over sensorineural auditory impairment in both ears were included in this study. Figure-ground perception, position in space, and design copying tests were used to evaluate the visual perception of the subjects (Ayres Southern California Sensorial Integration tests). The mean hearing impairment level was 95.5 +/- 13.86 dB for the right ear, and 92.25 +/- 14.3 dB for the left. There were no significant differences by mean of age, height, and body weight between the groups (P > 0.05). All of the test scores of the control group were significantly higher than those of hearing-impaired children (P < 0.05). However there was no significant difference in the completion time of the...