“Love looks not with the eyes”: supranormal processing of emotional speech in individuals with late-blindness versus preserved processing in individuals with congenital-blindness

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic data.

	N	Age M, sd, [range]	Gender
CB	17	44.2, 9.8, [30–63]	8 males
LB	15	50.5, 12.4, [28–74]	7 males
2-group difference		t(30) = 1.598, p = .120	χ^2(1) = 0.000, p = .982
SC	21	46.6, 13.4, [28-72]	6 males
SC vs CB		t(34) = .389, p = .389	χ^2(1) = 1.380, p = .240
SC vs LB		t(39) = .627, p = .535	χ^2(1) = 1.242, p = .265
3-group difference		F(2, 50) = 1.090, p = .344	χ^2(2) = 1.776, p = .411
Inclusion criteria (as assessed by self-report questionnaires)	Native Hebrew speakers; Possessing a high school or a college diploma; Normal or corrected to normal vision; Within the age range of 18–31 years old; Scored below the cutoff of 25 on DASS-21 self-report (Henry & Crawford, 2005), ensuring no symptoms for stress, anxiety, and depression.

Figure 1. Outline of the T-RES paradigm, as used in the current study, and the timeline of the study design.

Figure 2. Average and standard deviations (error bars) for the T-RES scores for the three study groups. The height of the respective columns depicts the extent of Identification (Panel A), or failures of Selective Attention (Panel B) to the target channel in the Late Blind (dark bars), the Congenitally Blind (gray bars) and the Sighted Control groups (white bars).

Table 2. Average ratings for the comparison of the three groups.

	Late Blind		Congenitally Blind		Controls
	Identification (baseline sentences)
	Prosody	Semantic	Prosody	Semantic	Prosody	Semantic
Target-emotion-present	5.92 (0.13)	5.69 (0.13)	5.46 (0.13)	5.23 (0.12)	5.48 (0.12)	5.25 (0.12)
Target-emotion-absent	1.52 (0.14)	1.65 (0.13)	1.77 (0.13)	1.89 (0.12)	1.84 (0.12)	1.96 (0.11)
Average Identification	4.22 (0.21)		3.51 (0.19)		3.46 (0.18)
	Selective Attention
	Prosody	Semantic	Prosody	Semantic	Prosody	Semantic
Congruent	5.94 (0.08)	5.92 (0.08)	5.78 (0.07)	5.75 (0.07)	5.92 (0.07)	5.89 (0.07)
Incongruent	5.80 (0.17)	5.59 (0.18)	5.17 (0.16)	4.95 (0.17)	5.46 (0.15)	5.25 (0.17)
Average Selective Attention	0.23 (0.15)		0.70 (0.14)		0.56 (0.13)

Figure 3. The moderating effect of Digit Span scores on the differences between CB and LB groups in T-RES scores. Higher points on the Y axes represent better performance: better emotion Identification (Panel A) and better (smaller failures of) Selective Attention (Panel B), for CB (gray lines) and LB (dark lines) individuals. X axes represent the distribution of performance on the Digit Span test with relation to the respective group mean.

Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS-21): Construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505X29657

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data available on request from the corresponding author, due to privacy restrictions.