Visual Field Abnormalities among Adolescent Boys with Hearing Impairments
Medical hypothesis discovery and innovation in ophthalmology,
Vol. 5 No. 2 (2016),
1 June 2016
,
Page 63-70
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the visual field (VF) categorizations (based on the severity of VF defects) between adolescent boys with hearing impairments and those with normal hearing. This cross-sectional study involved the evaluation of the VF of 64 adolescent boys with hearing impairments and 68 age-matched boys with normal hearing at high schools in Tehran, Iran, in 2013. All subjects had an intelligence quotient (IQ) > 70. The hearing impairments were classified based on severity and time of onset. Participants underwent a complete eye examination, and the VFs were investigated using automated perimetry with a Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer. This device was used to determine their foveal threshold (FT), mean deviation (MD), and Glaucoma Hemifield Test (GHT) results. Most (50%) of the boys with hearing impairments had profound hearing impairments. There was no significant between-group difference in age (P = 0.49) or IQ (P = 0.13). There was no between-group difference in the corrected distance visual acuity (P = 0.183). According to the FT, MD, and GHT results, the percentage of boys with abnormal VFs in the hearing impairment group was significantly greater than that in the normal hearing group: 40.6% vs. 22.1%, 59.4% vs. 19.1%, and 31.2% vs. 8.8%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The mean MD in the hearing impairment group was significantly worse than that in the normal hearing group (-0.79 ± 2.04 and -4.61 ± 6.52 dB, respectively, P < 0.0001), and the mean FT was also significantly worse (38.97 ± 1.66 vs. 35.30 ± 1.43 dB, respectively, P <0.0001). Moreover, there was a significant between-group difference in the GHT results (P < 0.0001). Thus, there were higher percentages of boys with VF abnormalities and higher mean MD, FT, and GHT results among those with hearing impairments compared to those with normal hearing. These findings emphasize the need for detailed VF assessments for patients with hearing impairments.ÂReferences
Nikolopoulos TP, Lioumi D, Stamataki S, O'Donoghue GM. Evidence-based overview of ophthalmic disorders in deaf children: a literature update. Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology. 2006;27(2 Suppl 1):S1-24, discussion S0. PMID: 16452831
Horn DL, Davisa RA, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT. Visual attention, behavioral inhibition and speech/language outcomes in deaf children with cochlear implants. International congress series. 2004;1273:332-5. PMID: 23100855
Hollingsworth R, Ludlow AK, Wilkins A, Calver R, Allen PM. Visual performance and ocular abnormalities in deaf children and young adults: a literature review. Acta ophthalmologica. 2014;92(4):305-10. PMID: 24330468
Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Nygren P, Force USPST. Universal newborn hearing screening: systematic review to update the 2001 US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):e266-76. PMID: 18595973
Thompson DC, McPhillips H, Davis RL, Lieu TL, Homer CJ, Helfand M. Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. Jama. 2001;286(16):2000-10. PMID: 11667937
Ries PW. Prevalence and characteristics of persons with hearing trouble: United States, 1990-91. Vital and health statistics Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey. 1994(188):1-75. PMID: 8165784
Bottari D, Nava E, Ley P, Pavani F. Enhanced reactivity to visual stimuli in deaf individuals. Restorative neurology and neuroscience. 2010;28(2):167-79. PMID: 20404406
Lore WH, Song S. Central and peripheral visual processing in hearing and nonhearing individuals. Bull Psychonomic Soc. 1991;29(5):437-40.
Reynolds HN. Effects of foveal stimulation on peripheral visual processing and laterality in deaf and hearing subjects. The American journal of psychology. 1993;106(4):523-40. PMID: 8296925
Merabet LB, Pascual-Leone A. Neural reorganization following sensory loss: the opportunity of change. Nature reviews Neuroscience. 2010;11(1):44-52. PMID: 19935836
McKean-Cowdin R, Varma R, Wu J, Hays RD, Azen SP, Los Angeles Latino Eye Study G. Severity of visual field loss and health-related quality of life. American journal of ophthalmology. 2007;143(6):1013-23. PMID: 17399676
Qiu M, Wang SY, Singh K, Lin SC. Association between visual field defects and quality of life in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(3):733-40. PMID: 24342021
Scott GD, Karns CM, Dow MW, Stevens C, Neville HJ. Enhanced peripheral visual processing in congenitally deaf humans is supported by multiple brain regions, including primary auditory cortex. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:177. PMID: 24723877
Rothpletz AM, Ashmead DH, Thorpe AM. Responses to targets in the visual periphery in deaf and normal-hearing adults. Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR. 2003;46(6):1378-86. PMID: 14700362
Vernon M. Fifty years of research on the intelligence of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: a review of literature and discussion of implications. Journal of deaf studies and deaf education. 2005;10(3):225-31. PMID: 15888725
Axelrod BN, Ryan JJ. Prorating Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III summary scores. Journal of clinical psychology. 2000;56(6):807-11. PMID: 10877468
Ghaderpanah M, Farrahi F, Khataminia G, Jahanbakhshi A, Rezaei L, Tashakori A, et al. Comparing Intelligence Quotient (IQ)among 3 to 7-year-old strabismic and nonstrabismic children in an Iranian population. Glob J Health Sci. 2015;8(3):26-36. PMID: 26493422
Pourmohamadreza-Tajrishi M, Ashori M, Jalilabkenar SS. The Effectiveness of Emotional Intelligence Training on the Mental Health of Male Deaf Students. Iran J Public Health. 2013;42(10):1174-80. PMID: 26060627
Ryan JJ, Schnakenberg-Ott SD. Scoring reliability on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III). Assessment. 2003;10(2):151-9. PMID: 12801187
Asman P, Heijl A. Glaucoma Hemifield Test. Automated visual field evaluation. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill : 1960). 1992;110(6):812-9. PMID: 1596230
Asman P, Heijl A. Evaluation of methods for automated Hemifield analysis in perimetry. Archives of ophthalmology (Chicago, Ill : 1960). 1992;110(6):820-6. PMID: 1596231
Thomas R, George R. Interpreting automated perimetry. Indian journal of ophthalmology. 2001;49(2):125-40. PMID: 15884520
Hodapp E, Parrish R, Anderson D. Clinical Decisions in Glaucoma. St Louis, Missouri: Mosby Inc; 1993.
Susanna R, Jr., Vessani RM. Staging glaucoma patient: why and how? The open ophthalmology journal. 2009;3:59-64. PMID: 19834563
Dye MW, Hauser PC, Bavelier D. Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? The case of the useful field of view. PloS one. 2009;4(5):e5640. PMID: 19462009
Armitage IM, Burke JP, Buffin JT. Visual impairment in severe and profound sensorineural deafness. Archives of disease in childhood. 1995;73(1):53-6. PMID: 7639551
Mohindra I. Vision profile of deaf children. American journal of optometry and physiological optics. 1976;53(8):412-9. PMID: 1086599
Khorrami Nejad M, Akbari MR, Ranjbar Pazooki M, Aghazadeh Amiri M, Askarizadeh F, Moeini Tabar MR, et al. The prevalence of refractive errors and binocular anomalies in students of deaf boys schools in Tehran. Iranian J Ophthalmol. 2014;26(4):183-8.
Khandekar R, Al Fahdi M, Al Jabri B, Al Harby S, Abdulamgeed T. Visual function and ocular status of children with hearing impairment in Oman: a case series. Indian journal of ophthalmology. 2009;57(3):228-9. PMID: 19384020
Buckley D, Codina C, Bhardwaj P, Pascalis O. Action video game players and deaf observers have larger Goldmann visual fields. Vision research. 2010;50(5):548-56. PMID: 19962395
Codina C, Buckley D, Port M, Pascalis O. Deaf and hearing children: a comparison of peripheral vision development. Developmental science. 2011;14(4):725-37. PMID: 21676093
- Abstract Viewed: 2085 times
- PDF Downloaded: 1641 times
