A common question for many is can someone who is Deaf, safely drive? I put this question to the test in a formal research style analysis in an effort to look into the details of driving Deaf.
Abstract
Deaf studies and accessibility norms are extremely important due to the misconception that they are not significant and therefore are not as widely understood as they should be. In this paper, information taken from surveys and studies is discussed in an effort to understand society’s stance on the matter leading up to today and possible implications from this point on. Through analysis of a study done by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Dittmar and others’, one can extrapolate that deafness does not impose extra risks and deaf drivers are in fact, able to visually detect more when it comes to tested visual tasks. The National Technological Institute for the Deaf and Rochester Institute of Technology further back this theory up with the discussion of American Sign Language and its positive correlation to greater peripheral and foveal detection. Even though there is still a need for further studies on the topic and a greater societal understanding of the Deaf culture, decreasing distractions will lead to increased attention of the surroundings.
Introduction
To those without direct exposure to the Deaf culture and those who are uneducated in the Deaf community, the Deaf are often viewed and labeled as disabled. The Deaf and hard of hearing most often are initially viewed in a negative light and therefore are assumed to lack the ability to do many things that hearing can do. This happens without a second thought, whether or not this label is true or not. It is often assumed that this diversion from the “typical” is bad when it is not. This leads into the topic at hand, distraction. While distraction can simply be defined as the diversion of attention from a specific task at hand, it is a broad definition. More specifically, attention is taken away from one thing in an effort to focus more on another. The hearing community, while a vast majority of the population, often take for granted the everyday things that are considered to be easy, may not be as easy for the Deaf. Some people believe that the Deaf should not be able to drive because it is a danger to them and others as they cannot hear possible warning signs from other drivers. However, because they are unable to hear, the absence of a split in attention leads to their other senses to increase. Furthermore, the lack of auditory sounds, and therefore possible auditory distractions, leads to an increase of attention to their surroundings.
Is there proof?
This brings up the discussion of evidence, or lack thereof, in regard to deaf and dangerous driving. Is there any proof that it is dangerous? Any proof that it is safer? Are the deaf drivers more aware of what is happening around them due to heightened attention? With so many questions, and very few concrete answers, it is hard to decide where to start. The lack of auditory distraction can be seen in two ways, so for this argument, the loss of hearing as a distraction is a positive thing. While “distraction” typically has a negative connotation, distractions can also be a good thing. In terms of driving distractions, the lack of hearing, most often seen as a distraction, allows for a positive outcome of greater attention on other important details. But how do we know this is true? It is often assumed that deaf drivers are more dangerous, but why is this? In truth, there is very little evidence to suggest this. But, let’s start with the understanding that there is no proof that drivers who are deaf cause more accidents (Booher, 1978), therefore it is not dangerous. Even though there has been very few studies on the topic, in one analyzed by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, it was concluded that deaf (for the purpose of this study, Booher defines deaf to generally mean totally deaf with the ability to hear no sound or, so little that hearing aids would provide no help) females in comparison to hearing females, did not differ in rates of vehicular accidents, however deaf males were 1.8 times more likely to get in a car accident then hearing men (Booher, 1978). It is unclear why there was a difference between males and females, but could be attributed to many other factors including location, time of day, age, or eyesight. However, in a similar study also done by Booher, it is noted that deaf drivers have fewer violations than their hearing counterparts. This suggests that with “fewer auditory distractions, they may have an increased ability to concentrate on driving which makes them better drivers” over-all (Booher, 1978).
Addressing the same misconception about the correlation between visual enhancement and hearing ability, Dittmar et. al., decided to gather their own findings and data. Through the gathering of twenty deaf and fifty hearing participants, they watched a visual display for forty-five minutes (broken up into three, fifteen-minute periods) in an effort to detect critical signals, in a form of horizontal bars of light. Participants pressed a switch when they detected the light to test their vigilance. Testing was broken up into three distinct groups; 1) Deaf, 2) hearing with a reward for completing the task, and 3) hearing with no reward attached. The study concluded that there is an obvious increase of detection in the deaf group in all three periods as you can see in the graph below which was taken from Dittmar’s analysis.
The results, higher detection among the deaf than among both hearing groups, support the assertion that the loss of hearing correlates to an increase in visual attention and detection, thus supporting the claim that the lack of auditory sounds increases attention to one’s surroundings.
Is it possible?
While all of this information suggests that the lack of hearing does indeed lead to increased attention (whether when driving or in day to day life), it brings up the question if the deaf can focus on more than one thing at a time, if they are just more attentive, or if their focus on a single thing is stronger and therefore results in quicker processing of information? Together the National Technological Institute for the Deaf (NTID) and Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) hypothesized that the deaf are generally “more flexible” in their understanding and processing of parafoveally defined information than hearing (Parafoveally defined information can be defined as attention on or by means of the parafovea which is region in the eye that allows for a point of fixation in your vision). They tested two groups on parafoveal stimulation detection; deaf college students who understood/mainly used American Sign Language (ASL) and hearing college students. In order to understand this study, it is important to understand ASL. ASL is a language that moves beyond simple communication. It uses the entirety of the space in front of one’s body. Using not just single signs, the action and movement of a sign portrays and/or can be understood as a completely different meaning. Due to the basic nature of ASL as a language and movement, it may be expected that one should focus on the hands of those they are signing with, however it is quite the opposite. Instead, when signing, one should maintain eye contact as a signal of respect and that they are understanding what is being signed (Parasnis & Samar, 1985). This suggests that the development of the peripheral field of view would be much greater in ASL signers. With this in mind, the result from the twenty deaf students from NTID and the twenty students from RIT concludes from the Reaction time study that deaf students were “more proficient in redirecting attention from one spatial location to another in the presence of irrelevant foveal information” (Parasnis & Samar, 1985). This amazing ability learned through ASL allows deaf drivers to have heightened attention to the ever-changing surrounding outside the car as they drive down a busy street or parking lot.
Through the use of Useful Field of View (“central target identification concurrent with peripheral target localization in the presence of distractors – a divided, selective attention task”) Dye et. al. tested to see if early deafness increases attention in the visual peripheral. There were two comparisons, of deaf and hearing adults (with or without sign language) in enhancing Useful Field of View and then performance of Useful Field of View in eleven-year-old deaf children who grew up deaf. It was concluded that visual attention resources following early auditory deprivation increase the peripheral and “eventually result in a clear behavioral advantage by pre-adolescence on a selective visual attention task” (Dye, Hauser & Bavelier, 1985). This suggests that with the development of the peripheral starting at a young age will increase detection when older.
Similarly, Harris and Chasin (2005) assert that by increasing visual stimulation and therefore visual strength starting at a young age (often by ASL for those born deaf), will increase abilities to understand surroundings without the help of sound. This can be seen not only in the use of ASL but also with reading and video game usage. The Department of Electronics and Communication at Poojya Doddappa Appa College of Engineering in Karnataka, India and Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology in Roorkee, India, evaluated the cognitive behavior of deaf participants when playing video games (Nagendra, 2017). They found that deaf users were able to direct their attention to multiple different things without losing track of where they were in the game or without getting distracted by something that was irrelevant. By comparing this to the act of driving, deaf drivers are able to process information more efficiently and disregard what is unwanted or unneeded for the current situation. This is a perfect example of heightened attention. This increased attention could make a big, positive difference. Take, for another example, driving in a snow storm approaching an intersection or driving through a neighborhood and a young child chases a ball into the street in front of the car, a deaf driver’s ability to successfully process numerous things at once, gives the deaf driver an advantage in such a situation.
Are there any "fixes"?
One of the main questions that is asked about deaf drivers, is: is there anything that can be done to fix it/ any devices that can be developed or put into place? Are deaf drivers totally fine with what comes standard in the car and their visual abilities? Or do they need extra help from an external device? One device that has been developed is a sound monitor by a collaboration of three Japanese institutes (Miyazaki, 1984). It was developed in an effort to allow the deaf to drive in Japan (as it is against the law), the authors created a device that is used to detect the surrounding traffic sounds and emitting a light for warning. This introduces an important argument regarding the detection of honks, sirens, or voice when driving. While this addresses a concern that some have with deaf drivers, it is an unfounded claim that requires much more research. However, with new hands-free laws limiting the use of handheld cellphones, many drivers use in-ear headphones when driving. This effectively blocks out most, if not all, outside noise and makes the driver “deaf” to honking and other warning sounds. Often unaware of what is happening, this leaves the “hearing” driver to be the same as the “deaf” driver, and there are no worries that these in-ear headphones are a danger, so why is this still a discussion? After many sound simulations, including different frequencies of sounds and their distances from the “car”, Miyazaki concluded that the device was successful in detecting and alerting the driver for all warning sounds, except for railway crossings (which was determined to not be a problem due to all the flashing lights and gates). While it was first developed for the purpose to allow deaf Japanese population access to driving, it can also be used in other countries. Even though this technology was developed in the early 80’s, little else has been developed since.
Focusing in on the abundance of technology and society’s technological dependence for everything in today’s age our technology accessibility is very important. It is often easy to forget that every user may have a different experience with a single product. Considering this survey regarding technology usage among deaf adults was published in 2014 and there has been a steady increase in the use of handheld technology, the results still hold to be true. This survey studied how many US adults who are deaf or hard of hearing use technology and how important it is to them. Results show that portable electronics (cellphones, laptops, and software on those such as internet and writing docs) are most used and most valuable to the deaf community (Maiorana-Basas & Pagliaro, 2014). One of the biggest desires is for an increased amount of closed captioning on all videos (which has arguably gotten much better in the last few years). All of this is in an effort to show/confirm that the deaf population is “more closely aligned to the general population than once believed, and that technology may indeed ‘level the playing field’” (Maiorana-Basas & Pagliaro, 2014). Not only does closed captioning benefit the deaf, but it is incredibly helpful for those with English, or any other language at hand, not being their first. In an effort to decrease the divide between the deaf and hearing, they urged that technology become more accessible by legal, educational, and professionals to keep equal opportunity. While closed captioning may provide little benefit when driving, the general theme of increased usability across all modalities is important.
Conclusion
The Deaf community and the hearing community, while intertwined almost completely, has many differences. A main cultural difference within the hearing community is that there is little thought when saying one is “hearing impaired,” but thinking about it, this is essentially saying they are damaged, when in fact, they are not. NO one likes to be called impaired or have one of their traits be characterized as an impairment. That being said, as a part of the hearing community, I have become aware of the implications we have when someone is different. While this is changing, it is not solved. The lack of auditory ability does not directly correlate with the decreased ability to drive, yet the lack of auditory ability does directly correlate with the increase of attention. There are good and bad drivers who hear, as well as good and bad drivers who are deaf. Hearing is not the difference, the individual and their driving skills and/or attention is what makes the difference. It is important to remember that each and every person is a different driver and reacts to certain situations differently, but deaf drivers should not be assumed to be less than solely based on the lack of hearing as seen in the discussed studies there might be an increase in attention and therefore decrease the chances of distraction or dangerous conditions when on the road.
To see this essay in APA formatting with a recommended reading list and complete citation page, click here.
Comments