Limits...
Explicit processing demands reveal language modality-specific organization of working memory.

Rudner M, Rönnberg J - J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ (2008)

Bottom Line: When explicit processing demands were high, differences emerged between DS and HN, suggesting that although working memory storage in both groups is sensitive to temporal organization, retrieval is not sensitive to temporal organization in DS.A general effect of semantic similarity was also found.These findings are discussed in relation to the ELU model.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. mary.rudner@liu.se

ABSTRACT
The working memory model for Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) predicts that processing differences between language modalities emerge when cognitive demands are explicit. This prediction was tested in three working memory experiments with participants who were Deaf Signers (DS), Hearing Signers (HS), or Hearing Nonsigners (HN). Easily nameable pictures were used as stimuli to avoid confounds relating to sensory modality. Performance was largely similar for DS, HS, and HN, suggesting that previously identified intermodal differences may be due to differences in retention of sensory information. When explicit processing demands were high, differences emerged between DS and HN, suggesting that although working memory storage in both groups is sensitive to temporal organization, retrieval is not sensitive to temporal organization in DS. A general effect of semantic similarity was also found. These findings are discussed in relation to the ELU model.

Show MeSH
Interaction between style of presentation and order of recognition cues in Experiment 3. Black blocks indicate serial presentation order of recognition cues and white blocks indicate random order.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2533441&req=5

fig4: Interaction between style of presentation and order of recognition cues in Experiment 3. Black blocks indicate serial presentation order of recognition cues and white blocks indicate random order.

Mentions: Out of the 10 items probed for the two replications of each eight-item list type, an average of 8.15 (SEM = 0.15) items were correctly recognized. Item recognition performance for all three presentation styles by recognition cue order and list type for the two groups is shown in Table 3. The level of performance did not vary significantly across group and there was no main effect on item recognition of the ordering of recognition cues. However, item recognition performance did vary with presentation style (F(2, 52) = 5.67, MSE = 2.55, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.18). In particular, item recognition performance was lower with the spatial style of presentation compared to the two styles of presentation with a temporal aspect, the mixed (mean difference = 0.55, p < .05) and temporal (mean difference = 0.68, p < .05) styles of presentation (Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons). Moreover, style of presentation interacted with order of recognition cues (F(2, 52) = 6.03, MSE = 1.45, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.19) with serial cuing order having a facilitating effect that increases with the degree of temporal organization of the style of presentation (see Figure 4).


Explicit processing demands reveal language modality-specific organization of working memory.

Rudner M, Rönnberg J - J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ (2008)

Interaction between style of presentation and order of recognition cues in Experiment 3. Black blocks indicate serial presentation order of recognition cues and white blocks indicate random order.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2533441&req=5

fig4: Interaction between style of presentation and order of recognition cues in Experiment 3. Black blocks indicate serial presentation order of recognition cues and white blocks indicate random order.
Mentions: Out of the 10 items probed for the two replications of each eight-item list type, an average of 8.15 (SEM = 0.15) items were correctly recognized. Item recognition performance for all three presentation styles by recognition cue order and list type for the two groups is shown in Table 3. The level of performance did not vary significantly across group and there was no main effect on item recognition of the ordering of recognition cues. However, item recognition performance did vary with presentation style (F(2, 52) = 5.67, MSE = 2.55, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.18). In particular, item recognition performance was lower with the spatial style of presentation compared to the two styles of presentation with a temporal aspect, the mixed (mean difference = 0.55, p < .05) and temporal (mean difference = 0.68, p < .05) styles of presentation (Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons). Moreover, style of presentation interacted with order of recognition cues (F(2, 52) = 6.03, MSE = 1.45, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.19) with serial cuing order having a facilitating effect that increases with the degree of temporal organization of the style of presentation (see Figure 4).

Bottom Line: When explicit processing demands were high, differences emerged between DS and HN, suggesting that although working memory storage in both groups is sensitive to temporal organization, retrieval is not sensitive to temporal organization in DS.A general effect of semantic similarity was also found.These findings are discussed in relation to the ELU model.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. mary.rudner@liu.se

ABSTRACT
The working memory model for Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) predicts that processing differences between language modalities emerge when cognitive demands are explicit. This prediction was tested in three working memory experiments with participants who were Deaf Signers (DS), Hearing Signers (HS), or Hearing Nonsigners (HN). Easily nameable pictures were used as stimuli to avoid confounds relating to sensory modality. Performance was largely similar for DS, HS, and HN, suggesting that previously identified intermodal differences may be due to differences in retention of sensory information. When explicit processing demands were high, differences emerged between DS and HN, suggesting that although working memory storage in both groups is sensitive to temporal organization, retrieval is not sensitive to temporal organization in DS. A general effect of semantic similarity was also found. These findings are discussed in relation to the ELU model.

Show MeSH