Women
Men
Deaf (n = 15)
Hearing (n = 15)
Deaf (n = 14)
Hearing (n = 15)
Female face emotions
Recognized
34.9 ± 11.2*
53.0 ± 1.2†
31.2 ± 13.3*
52.6 ± 1.9†
Unrecognized
18.4 ± 11.6*
0.8 ± 1.1
22.4 ± 13.1*
1.0 ± 1.6
Male face emotions
Recognized
30.6 ± 11.1*
52.9 ± 1.2†
30.6 ± 13.6*
53.5 ± 0.6†
Unrecognized
17.9 ± 11.1*
0.9 ± 1.0
20.3 ± 13.1*
0.3 ± 0.5
The number of identified emotions is not tantamount to the ability of emotion recognition. Therefore, the results were subjected to further qualitative analysis consisting of the calculation of a proportion of correct hits of face emotions among all known emotions. The results of this calculation broke down by the gender of the deaf and hearing observers of faces and the gender of the faces being looked upon are shown in Table 2. The deaf men were able to properly recognize more emotions associated with a definite either female or male face look, among the emotions they knew, compared with the hearing counterparts. That regularity did not concern the deaf women. Thus, it might be presumed that the deaf men are able to use the visuospatial coordination more effectively and readily in performance, to the extent it partakes of the emotional intelligence.
Table 2
Emotions recognized in female and male faces by deaf and hearing persons as percentage of all known emotions in a given group
Women | Men | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Deaf (n = 15) | Hearing (n = 15) | Deaf (n = 14) | Hearing (n = 15) | |
Female face emotions | 59.1 ± 12.3 | 55.5 ± 8.3 | 66.8 ± 10.3* | 54.8 ± 11.7 |
Male face emotions | 55.1 ± 13.6 | 56.9 ± 8.5 | 63.6 ± 6.5* | 53.5 ± 7.7 |
3.2 Attention – d2 Test
The test assessed the ability to scan visual material by comparing the number of mistakes made along the process in the deaf and hearing persons. There were inter-gender differences in the assessment of attention. The deaf women, but not men, crossed out significantly fewer letters than the hearing ones (p < 0.05), whereas the number of errors made was akin irrespective of the hearing status (Table 3). It follows that the deaf women’s total performance corrected for the number of errors made and concentration was worse. On the positive side, the scatter of the total number of letters processed in individual trials was significantly smaller in the deaf than that in the hearing women (p < 0.05). In contrast, differences in the attention indices between the deaf and hearing men were inappreciable. The hearing men, however, performed overall worse on the attention score than the hearing women in terms of the total and error-corrected numbers of letters processed and concentration. This inter-gender difference was absent in the deaf subjects whose attention was on a par in both genders.
Table 3
Comparative descriptions of variables in the d2 attention test in the deaf and hearing persons stratified by gender
Women | Men | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Deaf (n = 15) | Hearing (n = 15) | Deaf (n = 14) | Hearing (n = 15) | |
TN | 420.3 ± 91.9* | 483.5 ± 81.7 | 407.9 ± 99.8 | 404.2 ± 63.7† |
E1 | 33.3 ± 24.2 | 32.6 ± 18.3 | 23.4 ± 19.8 | 30.1 ± 23.3 |
E2 | 7.1 ± 4.9 | 8.9 ± 6.0 | 9.9 ± 8.0 | 6.5 ± 5.1 |
E | 40.3 ± 24.7 | 41.5 ± 19.0 | 33.3 ± 25.6 | 36.6 ± 25.8 |
E% | 9.6 ± 5.1 | 8.7 ± 4.1 | 7.6 ± 4.7 | 8.7 ± 5.6 |
TP | 380.2 ± 84.9* | 442.1 ± 83.0 | 374.6 ± 84.4 | 367.6 ± 51.4† |
FR | 19.1 ± 6.7* | 13.1 ± 5.3 | 19.1 ± 7.5 | 20.1 ± 6.0† |
CP
Related posts: Health Status Influence Acceptance of Illness in Patients with Chronic Respiratory Diseases?
 Disorders of Brain Neurotransmitters: Pathogenesis and Diagnostic Approach
 Protects Glial Cells Against 6-Hydroxydopamine Toxicity
 Brain Repair: The Role of Endogenous and Transplanted Neural Stem Cells
 Anomalous Innervations
 Approach to the Patient with Chronic and Recurrent Headache
 Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
Get Clinical Tree app for offline access
| ||||