失聪青少年注意网络：年龄相关模式的横断面研究

文献信息

中文摘要

背景： 注意在智力发展和社会互动中起核心作用。失聪青少年与听力正常青少年的注意可能存在差异，但这些差异究竟反映听力状况、语言经验、年龄相关因素，还是这些因素的某种组合，目前仍不清楚。方法：在这项横断面研究中，我们将注意网络测试与替代年龄函数的比较、按年龄分层分析以及EZ扩散模型相结合，使用525名6-19岁参与者（200名失聪者和325名听力正常者）的数据。结果：两组在童年期表现相似，警觉性未显示与年龄存在可靠的横断面关联，组间也无可靠差异。在两组中，执行控制代价在年龄较大时均较小。贝叶斯信息准则（BIC）支持失聪参与者采用线性年龄函数、听力正常参与者采用对数函数。然而关键的是，正式的组别×年龄交互作用不显著；因此函数形式的差异应视为描述性结果。相比之下，定向在失聪参与者中与年龄呈线性关系，但在听力正常参与者中呈减速的二次方模式；组别×年龄交互作用显著。失聪参与者在青春早期和中期还表现出较小的空间线索获益。EZ扩散模型进一步表明，冲突在失聪参与者中比在听力正常参与者中导致更大的漂移率下降和非决策时间增加，而冲突相关的边界调整在两组间相当。结论：这些发现共同提示，失聪青少年与听力正常青少年在视觉注意上的差异具有网络特异性和年龄相关性，而非表现为普遍性缺陷或普遍性代偿优势。由于本样本中听力状况、语言经验和教育背景相互交织，所观察到的组间差异不能解释为失聪或听觉剥夺的因果效应。

英文摘要

Attention plays a central role in intellectual development and social interaction. Attention may differ between deaf and hearing youth, but it remains unclear whether such differences reflect hearing status, language experience, age-related factors, or some combination of these factors. In this cross-sectional study, we combined the Attention Network Test with comparisons of alternative age functions, age-stratified analyses, and EZ-diffusion modeling using data from 525 participants aged 6-19 years (200 deaf and 325 hearing). Both groups performed similarly during childhood, and alerting showed no reliable cross-sectional association with age, with no reliable difference between groups. In both groups, executive-control costs were smaller at older ages. The Bayesian information criterion (BIC) favored a linear age function for deaf participants and a logarithmic function for hearing participants. Crucially, however, the formal Group × Age interaction was not significant; the difference in functional form should therefore be treated as descriptive. By contrast, orienting was linearly related to age among deaf participants but followed a decelerating quadratic pattern among hearing participants; the Group × Age interaction was significant. Deaf participants also showed smaller benefits from spatial cues during early and middle adolescence. EZ-diffusion modeling further indicated that conflict produced a larger reduction in drift rate and a larger increase in non-decision time among deaf than among hearing participants, whereas conflict-related boundary adjustments were comparable between groups. Together, these findings suggest that deaf and hearing youth differ in visual attention in a network-specific, age-related manner rather than exhibiting either a generalized deficit or a generalized compensatory advantage. Because hearing status, language experience, and educational context were intertwined in this sample, the observed group differences cannot be interpreted as causal effects of deafness or auditory deprivation.