Limits...
The contribution of phonological knowledge, memory, and language background to reading comprehension in deaf populations.

Hirshorn EA, Dye MW, Hauser P, Supalla TR, Bavelier D - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: These results suggest successful reading strategies differ across deaf readers as a function of their language experience, and highlight a possible alternative route to literacy in deaf native signers. 1.Free recall memory (primacy effect) better predicted reading comprehension in deaf native signers as compared to oral deaf or hearing individuals. 4.Language experience should be taken into account when considering cognitive processes that mediate reading in deaf individuals.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester NY, USA ; Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA.

ABSTRACT

Unlabelled: While reading is challenging for many deaf individuals, some become proficient readers. Little is known about the component processes that support reading comprehension in these individuals. Speech-based phonological knowledge is one of the strongest predictors of reading comprehension in hearing individuals, yet its role in deaf readers is controversial. This could reflect the highly varied language backgrounds among deaf readers as well as the difficulty of disentangling the relative contribution of phonological versus orthographic knowledge of spoken language, in our case 'English,' in this population. Here we assessed the impact of language experience on reading comprehension in deaf readers by recruiting oral deaf individuals, who use spoken English as their primary mode of communication, and deaf native signers of American Sign Language. First, to address the contribution of spoken English phonological knowledge in deaf readers, we present novel tasks that evaluate phonological versus orthographic knowledge. Second, the impact of this knowledge, as well as memory measures that rely differentially on phonological (serial recall) and semantic (free recall) processing, on reading comprehension was evaluated. The best predictor of reading comprehension differed as a function of language experience, with free recall being a better predictor in deaf native signers than in oral deaf. In contrast, the measures of English phonological knowledge, independent of orthographic knowledge, best predicted reading comprehension in oral deaf individuals. These results suggest successful reading strategies differ across deaf readers as a function of their language experience, and highlight a possible alternative route to literacy in deaf native signers.

Highlights: 1. Deaf individuals vary in their orthographic and phonological knowledge of English as a function of their language experience. 2. Reading comprehension was best predicted by different factors in oral deaf and deaf native signers. 3. Free recall memory (primacy effect) better predicted reading comprehension in deaf native signers as compared to oral deaf or hearing individuals. 4. Language experience should be taken into account when considering cognitive processes that mediate reading in deaf individuals.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Regression Plots of the Effect of Free Recall Primacy on Reading Comprehension in Deaf Groups.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4548088&req=5

Figure 7: Regression Plots of the Effect of Free Recall Primacy on Reading Comprehension in Deaf Groups.

Mentions: First, in order to assess whether the predictors of reading comprehension were significantly different across the two deaf groups, two types of regression models were created. Model 1 was a main effect model, with eight predictor variables: Shallow Phoneme Composite Score, Deep Phoneme Composite Score, Syllable Number Judgment Task, Speechreading, Serial Recall, Free Recall Primacy, Free Recall Recency, and group (oral deaf, deaf native signer). Models 2a-g separately added the interaction terms between group and the remaining seven predictors in a stepwise manner. A significant group × predictor interaction term would demonstrate a different level of importance of that given predictor for one group compared to the other. On its own, Model 1 was a significant predictor of reading performance [adjusted R2 = 0.33; F(8,36) = 3.67, p = 0.003] indicating that together the eight predictors (including group) accounted for a significant amount of variance in reading comprehension across all deaf participants. Interestingly, the group × free recall primacy interaction was the only significant interaction term: F(1,35) = 11.59, p = 0.002 [Model 2: adjusted R2 = 0.48; F(9,35) = 5.51, p < 0.001]. This demonstrates that the free recall primacy measure differentially affects reading comprehension in deaf native signers and oral deaf participants. As can be seen in Figure 7, free recall primacy was a better predictor of reading comprehension for deaf native signers than it was for the oral deaf.


The contribution of phonological knowledge, memory, and language background to reading comprehension in deaf populations.

Hirshorn EA, Dye MW, Hauser P, Supalla TR, Bavelier D - Front Psychol (2015)

Regression Plots of the Effect of Free Recall Primacy on Reading Comprehension in Deaf Groups.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4548088&req=5

Figure 7: Regression Plots of the Effect of Free Recall Primacy on Reading Comprehension in Deaf Groups.
Mentions: First, in order to assess whether the predictors of reading comprehension were significantly different across the two deaf groups, two types of regression models were created. Model 1 was a main effect model, with eight predictor variables: Shallow Phoneme Composite Score, Deep Phoneme Composite Score, Syllable Number Judgment Task, Speechreading, Serial Recall, Free Recall Primacy, Free Recall Recency, and group (oral deaf, deaf native signer). Models 2a-g separately added the interaction terms between group and the remaining seven predictors in a stepwise manner. A significant group × predictor interaction term would demonstrate a different level of importance of that given predictor for one group compared to the other. On its own, Model 1 was a significant predictor of reading performance [adjusted R2 = 0.33; F(8,36) = 3.67, p = 0.003] indicating that together the eight predictors (including group) accounted for a significant amount of variance in reading comprehension across all deaf participants. Interestingly, the group × free recall primacy interaction was the only significant interaction term: F(1,35) = 11.59, p = 0.002 [Model 2: adjusted R2 = 0.48; F(9,35) = 5.51, p < 0.001]. This demonstrates that the free recall primacy measure differentially affects reading comprehension in deaf native signers and oral deaf participants. As can be seen in Figure 7, free recall primacy was a better predictor of reading comprehension for deaf native signers than it was for the oral deaf.

Bottom Line: These results suggest successful reading strategies differ across deaf readers as a function of their language experience, and highlight a possible alternative route to literacy in deaf native signers. 1.Free recall memory (primacy effect) better predicted reading comprehension in deaf native signers as compared to oral deaf or hearing individuals. 4.Language experience should be taken into account when considering cognitive processes that mediate reading in deaf individuals.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester NY, USA ; Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA.

ABSTRACT

Unlabelled: While reading is challenging for many deaf individuals, some become proficient readers. Little is known about the component processes that support reading comprehension in these individuals. Speech-based phonological knowledge is one of the strongest predictors of reading comprehension in hearing individuals, yet its role in deaf readers is controversial. This could reflect the highly varied language backgrounds among deaf readers as well as the difficulty of disentangling the relative contribution of phonological versus orthographic knowledge of spoken language, in our case 'English,' in this population. Here we assessed the impact of language experience on reading comprehension in deaf readers by recruiting oral deaf individuals, who use spoken English as their primary mode of communication, and deaf native signers of American Sign Language. First, to address the contribution of spoken English phonological knowledge in deaf readers, we present novel tasks that evaluate phonological versus orthographic knowledge. Second, the impact of this knowledge, as well as memory measures that rely differentially on phonological (serial recall) and semantic (free recall) processing, on reading comprehension was evaluated. The best predictor of reading comprehension differed as a function of language experience, with free recall being a better predictor in deaf native signers than in oral deaf. In contrast, the measures of English phonological knowledge, independent of orthographic knowledge, best predicted reading comprehension in oral deaf individuals. These results suggest successful reading strategies differ across deaf readers as a function of their language experience, and highlight a possible alternative route to literacy in deaf native signers.

Highlights: 1. Deaf individuals vary in their orthographic and phonological knowledge of English as a function of their language experience. 2. Reading comprehension was best predicted by different factors in oral deaf and deaf native signers. 3. Free recall memory (primacy effect) better predicted reading comprehension in deaf native signers as compared to oral deaf or hearing individuals. 4. Language experience should be taken into account when considering cognitive processes that mediate reading in deaf individuals.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus