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 list type and presentation style in Experiment 3. Black blocks indicate Semantic lists and white blocks indicate Distinct lists.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig6: Interaction between list type and presentation style in Experiment 3. Black blocks indicate Semantic lists and white blocks indicate Distinct lists.

Mentions: On average, correct order was recognized 3.67 (SEM = 0.14) times out of the five times it was cued for the two replications of each eight-item list type. Order 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. However, there was a main effect of presentation style (F(2, 52) = 6.58, MSE = 1.62, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.20). As was the case with item recognition, performance was poorest with spatial style of presentation, although here the difference was only significant in relation to the mixed style presentation (mean difference = 0.60, p < .01). There was no main effect of list type, but list type did interact with presentation style (F(2, 52) = 5.76, MSE = 1.01, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.18), as a result of higher order recognition performance on Semantic lists with the spatial style of presentation (F(1, 26) = 6.93, MSE = 1.49, p < .05) (see Figure 6).


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

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

Interaction between list type and presentation style in Experiment 3. Black blocks indicate Semantic lists and white blocks indicate Distinct lists.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

fig6: Interaction between list type and presentation style in Experiment 3. Black blocks indicate Semantic lists and white blocks indicate Distinct lists.
Mentions: On average, correct order was recognized 3.67 (SEM = 0.14) times out of the five times it was cued for the two replications of each eight-item list type. Order 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. However, there was a main effect of presentation style (F(2, 52) = 6.58, MSE = 1.62, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.20). As was the case with item recognition, performance was poorest with spatial style of presentation, although here the difference was only significant in relation to the mixed style presentation (mean difference = 0.60, p < .01). There was no main effect of list type, but list type did interact with presentation style (F(2, 52) = 5.76, MSE = 1.01, p < .01, partial η2 = 0.18), as a result of higher order recognition performance on Semantic lists with the spatial style of presentation (F(1, 26) = 6.93, MSE = 1.49, p < .05) (see Figure 6).

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