CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

The role of visual deprivation and experience on the performance of sensory substitution devices

Stronks, H. Christiaan, Nau, Amy C., Ibbotson, Michael R., Barnes, Nick·2015·Brain Research
DOI 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.06.033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

It is commonly accepted that the blind can partially compensate for their loss of vision by developing enhanced abilities with their remaining senses. This visual compensation may be related to the fact that blind people rely on their other senses in everyday life. Many studies have indeed shown that experience plays an important role in visual compensation. Numerous neuroimaging studies have shown that the visual cortices of the blind are recruited by other functional brain areas and can become responsive to tactile or auditory input instead. These cross-modal plastic changes are more pronounced in the early blind compared to late blind individuals. The functional consequences of cross-modal plasticity on visual compensation in the blind are debated, as are the influences of various etiologies of vision loss (i.e., blindness acquired early or late in life). Distinguishing between the influences of experience and visual deprivation on compensation is especially relevant for rehabilitation of the blind with sensory substitution devices. The BrainPort artificial vision device and The vOICe are assistive devices for the blind that redirect visual information to another intact sensory system. Establishing how experience and different etiologies of vision loss affect the performance of these devices may help to improve existing rehabilitation strategies, formulate effective selection criteria and develop prognostic measures. In this review we will discuss studies that investigated the influence of training and visual deprivation on the performance of various sensory substitution approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.06.033

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ICMS in somatosensory cortex was not akin to sensory substitution cues that could have been provided by electrical or mechanical stimulation of intact skin or audio or visual cues, because the relationship between these cues and behavior must be learned.

    “This immediate performance improvement also demonstrates that ICMS in somatosensory cortex was not akin to sensory substitution cues that could have been provided by electrical or mechanical stimulation of intact skin or audio or visual cues, as the relationship between these cues and behavior must be learned (31).”

    From A brain-computer interface that evokes tactile sensations improves robotic arm control (2021) · cites this paper as [31]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Stronks, H. C., Nau, A. C., Ibbotson, M. R., & Barnes, N.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Stronks, H. Christiaan
ORCID
Venue
Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
1624
Pages
140-152
ISSN
0006-8993 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.brainres.2015.06.033
OpenAlex
W882895204
Cited by
31
References
115
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Government through the Department of Communications and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence Program.
  • Australian Capital Territory
  • the New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian Governments, the Australian National University
  • the University of New South Wales, the University of Melbourne
  • the University of Queensland
  • the University of Sydney
  • Griffith University
  • Queensland University of Technology
  • Monash University
  • Centre of Excellence for Integrative Brain Function (CE140100007)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
sensory substitution devices, visual deprivation, cross-modal plasticity, visual compensation, blindness, BrainPort, The Voice, training, visual cortex reorganization
MeSH terms
Animals, Blindness, Humans, Sensory Aids, Sensory Deprivation, Touch

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review