Reduced attentional inhibition for peripheral distractors of angry faces under central perceptual load in deaf individuals: evidence from an event-related potentials study

Jun Huang; Linhui Yang; Kuiliang Li; Yaling Li; Lan Dai; Tao Wang

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2023.1162488

Reduced attentional inhibition for peripheral distractors of angry faces under central perceptual load in deaf individuals: evidence from an event-related potentials study

Front Hum Neurosci. 2023 Aug 17:17:1162488. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2023.1162488. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Jun Huang^#^{1

2}, Linhui Yang^#^{1

3}, Kuiliang Li^{1

2}, Yaling Li^{1

2}, Lan Dai^{1

4}, Tao Wang^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ School of Education Science, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing, China.
² Chongqing Key Laboratory of Psychological Diagnosis and Education Technology for Children With Special Needs, Chongqing, China.
³ Changsha Special Education School, Changsha, China.
⁴ Banan Special Education School, Chongqing, China.

^# Contributed equally.

Abstract

Background: Studies have shown that deaf individuals distribute more attention to the peripheral visual field and exhibit enhanced visual processing for peripheral stimuli relative to hearing individuals. This leads to better detection of peripheral target motion and simple static stimuli in hearing individuals. However, when threatening faces that represent dangerous signals appear as non-targets in the periphery, it remains unclear whether deaf individuals would retain an advantage over hearing individuals in detecting them.

Methods: In this study, 23 deaf and 28 hearing college students were included. A modified perceptual load paradigm and event-related potentials (ERPs) were adopted. In the task, participants were instructed to search for a target letter in a central letter array, while task-irrelevant face distractors (happy, neutral, and angry faces) were simultaneously presented in the periphery while the central perceptual load was manipulated.

Results: Behavioral data showed that angry faces slowed deaf participants' responses to the target while facilitating the responses of hearing participants. At the electrophysiological level, we found modulation of P1 amplitude by central load only in hearing individuals. Interestingly, larger interference from angry face distractors was associated with higher P1 differential amplitude only in deaf individuals. Additionally, the amplitude of N170 for happy face distractors was smaller than that for angry and neutral face distractors in deaf participants.

Conclusion: The present data demonstrates that, despite being under central perceptual load, deaf individuals exhibit less attentional inhibition to peripheral, goal-irrelevant angry faces than hearing individuals. The result may reflect a compensatory mechanism in which, in the absence of auditory alertness to danger, the detection of visually threatening information outside of the current attentional focus has a high priority.

Keywords: ERPs; N170; P1; angry face; deaf; perceptual load; peripheral vision.