The Extent of Task Specificity for Visual and Tactile Sequences in the Auditory Cortex of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

M. Zimmermann; P. Mostowski; P. Rutkowski; P. Tomaszewski; P. Krzysztofiak; K. Jednoróg; A. Marchewka; M. Szwed

doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2527-20.2021

Published eLetters

Guidelines

As a forum for professional feedback, submissions of letters are open to all. You do not need to be a subscriber. To avoid redundancy, we urge you to read other people's letters before submitting your own. Name, current appointment, place of work, and email address are required to send a letter, and will be published with your review. We also require that you declare any competing financial interests. Unprofessional submissions will not be considered or responded to.

Submit a Response to This Article

Compose eLetter

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson{at}gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

Please describe the competing interests

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Math question * 5 + 5 =

Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

RE: Campbell, 2022
Maria Zimmermann and Marcin Szwed

Submitted on: 28 March 2022
RE: Zimmermann et al (2021)
Ruth Campbell

Submitted on: 01 February 2022

Submitted on: (28 March 2022)
Page navigation anchor for RE: Campbell, 2022
RE: Campbell, 2022
Maria Zimmermann, PhD candidate in cognitive neuroscience, Jagiellonian University
Other Contributors:
Marcin Szwed
Campbell (2022) implies that the Auditory Cortex (AC) recruitment for visual and tactile rhythm perception in the deaf (Zimmermann et al., 2021) is not due to sensory deprivation, as we proposed, but rather to sign-language acquisition. While the issue can be decisively resolved only by new experiments that would include a control group of hearing sign-language users, we nonetheless would like to point out arguments in favour of our position. Certainly, the sign-language acquisition is an important driver of brain plasticity. We argue however that is does not explain well our findings.
First, the effects revealed in our study are strongly right-lateralised, while language-related effects, including sign-language effects, are left-lateralised (e.g. Cardin, et al. 2020).
Second, deaf individuals perceive different aspects of music (Good, et al. 2014, Russo, et al. 2012) through vibrotactile stimulation. Such non-linguistic experience might drive the right AC recruitment for rhythm perception.
Third, while we agree that in sign-language body parts are touched when producing signs, one could argue that this aspect is important only for sign-language production, not perception. This issue could be framed as whether one needs perception for action. The reverse question, i.e. whether one needs action for perception is the topic of long-going debate. However, the weight of evidence in the last decade has shifted against the idea of a tight coupling between the tw...
Show More

Campbell (2022) implies that the Auditory Cortex (AC) recruitment for visual and tactile rhythm perception in the deaf (Zimmermann et al., 2021) is not due to sensory deprivation, as we proposed, but rather to sign-language acquisition. While the issue can be decisively resolved only by new experiments that would include a control group of hearing sign-language users, we nonetheless would like to point out arguments in favour of our position. Certainly, the sign-language acquisition is an important driver of brain plasticity. We argue however that is does not explain well our findings.
First, the effects revealed in our study are strongly right-lateralised, while language-related effects, including sign-language effects, are left-lateralised (e.g. Cardin, et al. 2020).
Second, deaf individuals perceive different aspects of music (Good, et al. 2014, Russo, et al. 2012) through vibrotactile stimulation. Such non-linguistic experience might drive the right AC recruitment for rhythm perception.
Third, while we agree that in sign-language body parts are touched when producing signs, one could argue that this aspect is important only for sign-language production, not perception. This issue could be framed as whether one needs perception for action. The reverse question, i.e. whether one needs action for perception is the topic of long-going debate. However, the weight of evidence in the last decade has shifted against the idea of a tight coupling between the two (e.g. Hickok, 2014).
As to studies on the tactile language deaf-blind population mentioned by Campbell (2022), they are a different case as their tactile modality supports both active language production and language perception. Nonetheless, such studies are definitely worthwhile and needed.

Cardin, V., Grin, K., Vinogradova, V., & Manini, B. (2020). Crossmodal reorganisation in deafness: mechanisms for functional preservation and functional change. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 113, 227-237.
Good, A., Reed, M. J., & Russo, F. A. (2014). Compensatory plasticity in the deaf brain: Effects on perception of music. Brain sciences, 4(4), 560-574.
Hickok, G. (2014). The myth of mirror neurons: The real neuroscience of communication and cognition. W W Norton & Co.
Russo, F. A., Ammirante, P., & Fels, D. I. (2012). Vibrotactile discrimination of musical timbre. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 822.
Zimmermann, M., Mostowski, P., Rutkowski, P., Tomaszewski, P., Krzysztofiak, P., Jednoróg, K., & Szwed, M. (2021). The extent of task specificity for visual and tactile sequences in the auditory cortex of the deaf and hard of hearing. Journal of Neuroscience, 41(47), 9720-9731.
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.
Submitted on: (1 February 2022)
Page navigation anchor for RE: Zimmermann et al (2021)
RE: Zimmermann et al (2021)
Ruth Campbell, psychologist/neuropsychologist, University College London
In discussing the similar recruitment of AC for tactile and for visual rhythmic trains in sign language users who are deaf, Zimmerman et al. (Zimmermann et al., 2021) suggest that “… tactile perception, unlike visual processing, does not seem to be directly connected with sign language acquisition…” (p 9729). Thus, they suggest their findings argue for a (general) sensory, not language-driven task-specific pattern of organization. This inference may be premature: while sign language is predominantly visual, it is also inherently tactile. Its tactility is evident in the pre-linguistic and linguistic interactions between a deaf child and Deaf caregiver (Koester et al., 2000) as well as ways in which in hands, face and body parts are touched in sign production. Tactile signing between communication partners is used – readily - by sighted Deaf people when vision is not available (ie in darkness). Tactile signing is, of course, paramount in Deaf-blind people including those whose early experience was visual (Reed et al., 1990; Willoughby et al., 2020). Its cortical correlates are still underinvestigated (Obretenova et al., 2010),.

Koester, L. S., Brooks, L., & Traci, M. A. (2000). Tactile Contact by Deaf and Hearing Mothers During Face-to-Face Interactions With Their Infants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 5(2), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.2.127
Obretenova, S., Halko, M. A., Plow, E. B., Pascual-Leo...
Show More

In discussing the similar recruitment of AC for tactile and for visual rhythmic trains in sign language users who are deaf, Zimmerman et al. (Zimmermann et al., 2021) suggest that “… tactile perception, unlike visual processing, does not seem to be directly connected with sign language acquisition…” (p 9729). Thus, they suggest their findings argue for a (general) sensory, not language-driven task-specific pattern of organization. This inference may be premature: while sign language is predominantly visual, it is also inherently tactile. Its tactility is evident in the pre-linguistic and linguistic interactions between a deaf child and Deaf caregiver (Koester et al., 2000) as well as ways in which in hands, face and body parts are touched in sign production. Tactile signing between communication partners is used – readily - by sighted Deaf people when vision is not available (ie in darkness). Tactile signing is, of course, paramount in Deaf-blind people including those whose early experience was visual (Reed et al., 1990; Willoughby et al., 2020). Its cortical correlates are still underinvestigated (Obretenova et al., 2010),.

Koester, L. S., Brooks, L., & Traci, M. A. (2000). Tactile Contact by Deaf and Hearing Mothers During Face-to-Face Interactions With Their Infants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 5(2), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.2.127
Obretenova, S., Halko, M. A., Plow, E. B., Pascual-Leone, A., & Merabet, L. B. (2010). Neuroplasticity associated with tactile language communication in a deaf-blind subject. Front Hum Neurosci, 3, 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.060.2009
Reed, C. M., Delhorne, L. A., Durlach, N. I., & Fischer, S. D. (1990). A study of the tactual and visual reception of fingerspelling. J Speech Hear Res, 33(4), 786-797. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3304.786
Willoughby, L., Manns, H., Iwasaki, S., & Bartlett, M. (2020). From Seeing to Feeling: how do Deafblind people adapt visual sign languages? In K. Allen (Ed.), Dynamics of Language Changes. Springer Nature.
Zimmermann, M., Mostowski, P., Rutkowski, P., Tomaszewski, P., Krzysztofiak, P., Jednoróg, K., . . . Szwed, M. (2021). The Extent of Task Specificity for Visual and Tactile Sequences in the Auditory Cortex of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. J Neurosci, 41(47), 9720-9731. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2527-20.2021
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.

In this issue

View Full Page PDF

Citation Tools

Respond to this article

Request Permissions

Keywords

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

RE: Campbell, 2022
Maria Zimmermann and Marcin Szwed

Published on: 28 March 2022
RE: Zimmermann et al (2021)
Ruth Campbell

Published on: 01 February 2022

Published on: (28 March 2022)
Page navigation anchor for RE: Campbell, 2022
RE: Campbell, 2022
Maria Zimmermann, PhD candidate in cognitive neuroscience, Jagiellonian University
Other Contributors:
Marcin Szwed
Campbell (2022) implies that the Auditory Cortex (AC) recruitment for visual and tactile rhythm perception in the deaf (Zimmermann et al., 2021) is not due to sensory deprivation, as we proposed, but rather to sign-language acquisition. While the issue can be decisively resolved only by new experiments that would include a control group of hearing sign-language users, we nonetheless would like to point out arguments in favour of our position. Certainly, the sign-language acquisition is an important driver of brain plasticity. We argue however that is does not explain well our findings.
First, the effects revealed in our study are strongly right-lateralised, while language-related effects, including sign-language effects, are left-lateralised (e.g. Cardin, et al. 2020).
Second, deaf individuals perceive different aspects of music (Good, et al. 2014, Russo, et al. 2012) through vibrotactile stimulation. Such non-linguistic experience might drive the right AC recruitment for rhythm perception.
Third, while we agree that in sign-language body parts are touched when producing signs, one could argue that this aspect is important only for sign-language production, not perception. This issue could be framed as whether one needs perception for action. The reverse question, i.e. whether one needs action for perception is the topic of long-going debate. However, the weight of evidence in the last decade has shifted against the idea of a tight coupling between the tw...
Show More

Campbell (2022) implies that the Auditory Cortex (AC) recruitment for visual and tactile rhythm perception in the deaf (Zimmermann et al., 2021) is not due to sensory deprivation, as we proposed, but rather to sign-language acquisition. While the issue can be decisively resolved only by new experiments that would include a control group of hearing sign-language users, we nonetheless would like to point out arguments in favour of our position. Certainly, the sign-language acquisition is an important driver of brain plasticity. We argue however that is does not explain well our findings.
First, the effects revealed in our study are strongly right-lateralised, while language-related effects, including sign-language effects, are left-lateralised (e.g. Cardin, et al. 2020).
Second, deaf individuals perceive different aspects of music (Good, et al. 2014, Russo, et al. 2012) through vibrotactile stimulation. Such non-linguistic experience might drive the right AC recruitment for rhythm perception.
Third, while we agree that in sign-language body parts are touched when producing signs, one could argue that this aspect is important only for sign-language production, not perception. This issue could be framed as whether one needs perception for action. The reverse question, i.e. whether one needs action for perception is the topic of long-going debate. However, the weight of evidence in the last decade has shifted against the idea of a tight coupling between the two (e.g. Hickok, 2014).
As to studies on the tactile language deaf-blind population mentioned by Campbell (2022), they are a different case as their tactile modality supports both active language production and language perception. Nonetheless, such studies are definitely worthwhile and needed.

Cardin, V., Grin, K., Vinogradova, V., & Manini, B. (2020). Crossmodal reorganisation in deafness: mechanisms for functional preservation and functional change. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 113, 227-237.
Good, A., Reed, M. J., & Russo, F. A. (2014). Compensatory plasticity in the deaf brain: Effects on perception of music. Brain sciences, 4(4), 560-574.
Hickok, G. (2014). The myth of mirror neurons: The real neuroscience of communication and cognition. W W Norton & Co.
Russo, F. A., Ammirante, P., & Fels, D. I. (2012). Vibrotactile discrimination of musical timbre. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(4), 822.
Zimmermann, M., Mostowski, P., Rutkowski, P., Tomaszewski, P., Krzysztofiak, P., Jednoróg, K., & Szwed, M. (2021). The extent of task specificity for visual and tactile sequences in the auditory cortex of the deaf and hard of hearing. Journal of Neuroscience, 41(47), 9720-9731.
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.
Published on: (1 February 2022)
Page navigation anchor for RE: Zimmermann et al (2021)
RE: Zimmermann et al (2021)
Ruth Campbell, psychologist/neuropsychologist, University College London
In discussing the similar recruitment of AC for tactile and for visual rhythmic trains in sign language users who are deaf, Zimmerman et al. (Zimmermann et al., 2021) suggest that “… tactile perception, unlike visual processing, does not seem to be directly connected with sign language acquisition…” (p 9729). Thus, they suggest their findings argue for a (general) sensory, not language-driven task-specific pattern of organization. This inference may be premature: while sign language is predominantly visual, it is also inherently tactile. Its tactility is evident in the pre-linguistic and linguistic interactions between a deaf child and Deaf caregiver (Koester et al., 2000) as well as ways in which in hands, face and body parts are touched in sign production. Tactile signing between communication partners is used – readily - by sighted Deaf people when vision is not available (ie in darkness). Tactile signing is, of course, paramount in Deaf-blind people including those whose early experience was visual (Reed et al., 1990; Willoughby et al., 2020). Its cortical correlates are still underinvestigated (Obretenova et al., 2010),.

Koester, L. S., Brooks, L., & Traci, M. A. (2000). Tactile Contact by Deaf and Hearing Mothers During Face-to-Face Interactions With Their Infants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 5(2), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.2.127
Obretenova, S., Halko, M. A., Plow, E. B., Pascual-Leo...
Show More

In discussing the similar recruitment of AC for tactile and for visual rhythmic trains in sign language users who are deaf, Zimmerman et al. (Zimmermann et al., 2021) suggest that “… tactile perception, unlike visual processing, does not seem to be directly connected with sign language acquisition…” (p 9729). Thus, they suggest their findings argue for a (general) sensory, not language-driven task-specific pattern of organization. This inference may be premature: while sign language is predominantly visual, it is also inherently tactile. Its tactility is evident in the pre-linguistic and linguistic interactions between a deaf child and Deaf caregiver (Koester et al., 2000) as well as ways in which in hands, face and body parts are touched in sign production. Tactile signing between communication partners is used – readily - by sighted Deaf people when vision is not available (ie in darkness). Tactile signing is, of course, paramount in Deaf-blind people including those whose early experience was visual (Reed et al., 1990; Willoughby et al., 2020). Its cortical correlates are still underinvestigated (Obretenova et al., 2010),.

Koester, L. S., Brooks, L., & Traci, M. A. (2000). Tactile Contact by Deaf and Hearing Mothers During Face-to-Face Interactions With Their Infants. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ, 5(2), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.2.127
Obretenova, S., Halko, M. A., Plow, E. B., Pascual-Leone, A., & Merabet, L. B. (2010). Neuroplasticity associated with tactile language communication in a deaf-blind subject. Front Hum Neurosci, 3, 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.060.2009
Reed, C. M., Delhorne, L. A., Durlach, N. I., & Fischer, S. D. (1990). A study of the tactual and visual reception of fingerspelling. J Speech Hear Res, 33(4), 786-797. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3304.786
Willoughby, L., Manns, H., Iwasaki, S., & Bartlett, M. (2020). From Seeing to Feeling: how do Deafblind people adapt visual sign languages? In K. Allen (Ed.), Dynamics of Language Changes. Springer Nature.
Zimmermann, M., Mostowski, P., Rutkowski, P., Tomaszewski, P., Krzysztofiak, P., Jednoróg, K., . . . Szwed, M. (2021). The Extent of Task Specificity for Visual and Tactile Sequences in the Auditory Cortex of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. J Neurosci, 41(47), 9720-9731. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2527-20.2021
Show Less

Competing Interests: None declared.

Main menu

User menu

Search

The Extent of Task Specificity for Visual and Tactile Sequences in the Auditory Cortex of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Published eLetters

Guidelines

Plain text

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Keywords

Responses to this article

Jump to comment:

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

Development/Plasticity/Repair

Main menu

User menu

Search

The Extent of Task Specificity for Visual and Tactile Sequences in the Auditory Cortex of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

Published eLetters

Guidelines

Plain text

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

Keywords

Responses to this article

Jump to comment:

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Articles

Development/Plasticity/Repair