↓ Skip to main content

Faster phonological processing and right occipito-temporal coupling in deaf adults signal poor cochlear implant outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Faster phonological processing and right occipito-temporal coupling in deaf adults signal poor cochlear implant outcome
Published in
Nature Communications, March 2017
DOI 10.1038/ncomms14872
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diane S. Lazard, Anne-Lise Giraud

Abstract

The outcome of adult cochlear implantation is predicted positively by the involvement of visual cortex in speech processing, and negatively by the cross-modal recruitment of the right temporal cortex during and after deafness. How these two neurofunctional predictors concur to modulate cochlear implant (CI) performance remains unclear. In this fMRI study, we explore the joint involvement of occipital and right hemisphere regions in a visual-based phonological task in post-lingual deafness. Intriguingly, we show that some deaf subjects perform faster than controls. This behavioural effect is associated with reorganized connectivity across bilateral visual, right temporal and left inferior frontal cortices, but with poor CI outcome. Conversely, preserved normal-range reaction times are associated with left-lateralized phonological processing and good CI outcome. These results suggest that following deafness, involvement of visual cortex in the context of reorganized right-lateralized phonological processing compromises its availability for audio-visual synergy during adaptation to CI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Master 15 15%
Other 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 22 23%
Psychology 13 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Engineering 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 21 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,449,661
of 23,578,918 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#20,326
of 49,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,975
of 309,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#408
of 852 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,578,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 49,146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 852 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.