Reading and Deaf Individuals: Perspectives on the Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis
Reading Skills in Deaf Subjects: Role of Psycholinguistic Factors and Global Influences in Affecting Reading Functioning ()
Chiara Valeria Marinelli1*, Francesca Vizzi1, Pierluigi Zoccolottitwo,3
11Laboratory of Applied Psychology and Intervention, Department of History, Social club and Human Studies, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.
2Department of Psychology, Sapienza Academy of Rome, Rome, Italy.
threeISTC Institute for Cerebral Sciences and Technologies, CNR, Rome, Italy.
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2019.1012115 PDFHTML XML 469 Downloads 878 Views Citations
Abstruse
The present study examined the role of psycholinguistic variables, equally well equally the presence of a global factor, in modulating reading speed and accurateness in individuals with a severe hearing damage. Thirteen deaf and xiii hearing young adults who completed high school and were proficient in both oral lipreading and Italian sign language were examined and compared to a group of control subjects matched for gender, age and teaching. A wide spectrum of psycholinguistic variables affecting reading were examined, mark visual (letter confusability), sub-lexical (length, character contextuality), lexical (frequency, N-size, stress) and semantic (historic period of acquisition and imageability) processes. Vocal reaction times (RT) in reading aloud single words were slower in deafened participants with respect to hearing subjects but they were affected by psycholinguistic variables in a very like way than in the example of controls. Moreover, deaf individuals did not prove a multiplicative effect as a function of word difficulty in their reading slowness merely merely a constant delay. Overall, the arrears shown by deaf participants was relatively limited and not associated to specific cognitive processes. This finding is in keeping with the idea that at to the lowest degree some individuals with a severe hearing impairment may reach reasonably high levels of discussion decoding.
Share and Cite:
Marinelli, C. , Vizzi, F. and Zoccolotti, P. (2019) Reading Skills in Deaf Subjects: Function of Psycholinguistic Factors and Global Influences in Affecting Reading Functioning. Psychology, x, 1754-1775. doi: 10.4236/psych.2019.1012115.
one. Introduction
Individuals with moderate to astringent deafness show various degrees of difficulty in learning to read and write effectively. Understanding the source of these difficulties is circuitous every bit several different abilities contribute to the conquering of literacy even in typical development.
One of import foundation of literacy rests on the acquisition of oral language skills. Several studies (e.g. Perfetti & Sandak, 2000; Musselman, 2000 ) have shown that deaf people nowadays several difficulties in linguistic communication as consequences of a variety of factors. One of these factors is the late exposure to spoken language compared to hearing children (Bertone & Volpato, 2009) . In fact, even if the diagnosis of deafness is made early, information technology takes some fourth dimension before the child learns to read the labial and to exploit whatever acoustic residual through the hearing aids. This typically produces a filibuster in the exposition to language. The phonological deficit and language delay may take consequences on the learning of reading and writing skills. Indeed, fifty-fifty in hearing children the presence of a linguistic communication delay reflects on the quality of written language conquering and text comprehension (Angelelli et al., 2016; Chilosi et al., 2009). In fact, deaf subjects report less adequate written language skills compared to hearing people, matched for age and years of pedagogy (Williams & Mayer, 2015) ; moreover, in most cases, the difficulties are likewise found later some periods of rehabilitation (Bertone & Volpato, 2009) . Productions of deaf subjects in writing tasks have peculiar traits (Caselli et al., 2006; Chesi, 2006) : text is characterized by poor vocabulary and the formulation of short and telegraphic sentences. Importantly, the deficit in the use of syntax is not confined to production but there is show that deaf children are likewise impaired is solving visually presented syntactic contrasts (such equally active-passive, single-plural etc.; Bishop, 1983 ). In addition, significant errors are establish in the nominal domain, specifically a systematic omission of indefinite articles, while in the verbal domain, the difficulties are mainly reported in ordering the subject and verb (Franchi & Musola, 2010) . Many errors and omissions are reported in the use of free morphology, especially in the use of pronouns and prepositions (Chesi, 2006) . The difficulty of deaf people to understand and use these words in a proper way is mainly caused past their length (number of messages), their atonic nature, and the lack of semantic content, and by the fact that they are not essential within the discourse. These characteristics make these words hard to identify through lip-reading.
Several studies have shown that, as a grouping, the reading skills of deafened children are poorer compared to those of hearing peers (Geers, 2003; Geers & Hayes, 2011; Harris & Terlektsi, 2010; Johnson & Goswami, 2010; Kyle & Harris, 2006; Moeller et al., 2007) . Still, it must be noted that as well large inter-individual differences are reported such that a proportion of deaf individuals read at much the same level of hearing subjects (e.grand. Bélanger et al., 2012a ). A pioneering written report, dating about forty years ago (Conrad, 1979) , had already pointed out that, as a group, the reading skills of deaf subjects were considerably worse than the reading abilities of hearing subjects. Specifically, this report, conducted on a considerable number of deafened students who left school betwixt 1974 and 1976, revealed that less than 15% of the entire sample reached an adequate level in reading tasks. Too, illiteracy of deaf students is reported to exist higher than that of hearing peers (Sánchez & García-Rodicio, 2006) . More contempo show indicates that the use of hearing cochlear implants has significantly enhanced the quality of reading skills in deafened children fifty-fifty though, as a group, they still showed lower performance in reading; notably, less improvement was noted in the case of writing (Mayer et al., 2016) . In part every bit an effect of this, it has been noted that deafness per se is a poor predictor of reading efficiency (Moreno-Pérez et al., 2015) .
How should the presence of dumb reading along with large inter-individual variability be interpreted? There seem to be two major lines of research. Ane focusses on the role of the phonological deficit connected with the hearing harm; in this view, impairment in reading directly depends on the level of phonological skills acquired. A different line of enquiry focuses on the possible presence of qualitative differences in strategies in the reading of deaf and hearing subjects. Below, we briefly describe the main evidence continued with these two lines of research.
In deafened subjects, the perception of phono-acoustic details of language is obviously lower with respect to hearing people (Dark-brown & Bacon, 2010; Pisoni et al., 2008; Tomblin et al., 2015) . In fact, deaf individuals are able to admission phonology only using multiple compensation strategies, but notably these are not ever effective in order to achieve a skilful result (Leybaert, 1993; Marschark & Harris, 1996) . The difficulty in accessing the acoustic input leads to a consequent poor phonological competence (Lyxell et al., 2008; Pisoni et al., 2008) , that in turn may bear on reading (and spelling) conquering. Potentially disquisitional to this thought is the performance of deafened individuals in tasks specifically calling for phonological processing, often involving the presentation of pseudo-homophones. Unfortunately, evidence is mixed showing the whole spectrum of possible outcomes. Based on a masked phonological priming paradigm, Gutierrez-Sigut et al. (2018) reported that deaf individuals showed faster word identification times in the pseudo-homophone than in the control condition. Similar results were reported in a study using both behavioural and ERP measures (Gutierrez-Sigut et al., 2017) and in a study on English children past Blythe et al. (2018) . Transler and Reitsma (2005) found that pseudo-homophony furnishings were present simply smaller in deaf individuals than in hearing controls. Yet different findings were reported by Bélanger et al. (2012a) who, using a masked priming image, constitute that orthographic codes were used independent of the hearing deficit merely phonological codes were used merely by skilled hearing subjects. The authors of studies obtaining evidence of pseudo-homophone effects in deafened individuals underscore the critical role of phonological processing in reading. In this vein, impaired reading is seen as a direct issue of depression phonological processing. Still, there are quite unlike views regarding the human relationship between reading skills and phonology in deafened individuals (Leybaert, 1993; Musselman, 2000; Perfetti & Sandak, 2000) .
In a dissimilar line of research, several authors merits that deaf individuals can achieve an adequate level of literacy only if they apply reading mechanisms that are not based on a phonological conversion process simply on lexical processing (Mayberry et al., 2011; Stiff & Prinz, 2000) or contextual information. For case, Domìnguez and Alegrìa (2010) hypothesized that the strategy used by many deaf readers in adulthood is to ignore function words and depression frequency words and focus on the fundamental words of a text to derive the global meaning of the sentence they are reading (run across also Domínguez et al., 2014 ). In this vein, a direct comparison of the construction of the lexicon indicates that deaf people are on average quite similar to hearing subjects (McEvoy et al., 1999) . Interesting testify on this issue comes from studies of heart movements (for a review see Bélanger & Rayner 2015 ). In particular, it has been plant that the general pattern of centre movements in reading of deaf individuals is similar to that of hearing subjects but clear differences are too present in some parameters. In particular, in reading meaningful texts deaf individuals show fewer regressions than what is typical for hearing subjects (i.east. 15% - 20% of movements) thus as well making fewer word refixations. Furthermore, they skip function words more than often than do hearing subjects. This pattern may indicate a tendency to focus on critical lexical items and context (Mayberry et al., 2011; Strong & Prinz, 2000) . However, Bélanger and Rayner (2013) too note that the tendency for a greater use of contextual information in deafened individuals (as originally proposed by Fischler, 1985 ) is not a general characteristic just it is actually nowadays only on low achieving deafened individuals. Accordingly, Bélanger and Rayner (2015) propose that the (small) proportion of deaf individuals who perform at the aforementioned level of hearing subjects actually develop a particular skill in discussion processing (referred to equally "discussion-processing efficiency hypothesis"). Testify on this comes from eye movement data using the so-called purlieus image which provides an online measure of the size of the parafoveal visual span (Bélanger et al., 2012b) . Notably, profoundly deafened individuals who were skilled readers had a larger visual bridge than controls matched for reading ability. This finding is in keeping with the idea that some (though not all) deafened individuals are able to optimize their orthographic skills fifty-fifty in the presence of scarce phonological processing then equally to fill the gap in reading as envisaged by the discussion-processing efficiency hypothesis (Bélanger & Rayner, 2015) . Consistent evidence besides comes from the use of the gaze-contingent purlieus paradigm (Bélanger et al., 2013) : hearing subjects showed the activation of both phonological and orthographic codes while deaf individuals were sensitive simply to orthographic codes. Overall, some experimental data bespeak to the presence of qualitative differences in the discussion-processing of deafened individuals; at to the lowest degree a proportion of them seem able to optimize the visual-orthographic components of reading reaching a performance level comparable to that of skilled hearing readers.
Some prove pointing to qualitative differences between deaf and hearing subjects likewise comes from neurophysiological and imaging data. Based on fMRI information, Glezer et al. (2018) reported similar activation in the so-called visual give-and-take form area (VWFA) in deaf and hearing subjects but less activation in the temporoparietal cortex commonly believed to subsume phonological processing. Furthermore, deaf individuals showed sensitivity to orthographic but not phonological information in the inferior frontal gyrus. Consistent findings were reported past Wang et al. (2014) who found spared activation of VWFA but also reduced resting-state connectivity between the VWFA and the auditory speech communication expanse in the left anterior superior temporal gyrus. Also consistent appears the show based on evoked potentials (ERP) data. Thus, deafened individuals showed spared N170 (known to be sensitive to print-tuning) in occipital sites while hearing subjects showed clear N170 responses both in temporal and occipitals areas (Emmorey et al., 2017) . Overall, the ERP and MRI data are in keeping with the idea that deaf individuals may really process information differently from hearing subjects.
To fully characterize the reading profile of individuals with hearing impairment it would be important to exploit the several well-known criterion effects which accept been established in the instance of reading (e.g. Perry et al., 2007 ). However, just a few studies have examined which psycholinguistic characteristics of words attune reading in deaf individuals. Every bit described higher up, the main interest has been on phonological effects while only a few studies accept considered the role of frequency or contextual effects (e.thousand. Bélanger et al., 2013 ). In Italian (Barca et al., 2013) , the linguistic communication object of the nowadays research, one written report examined the lexicality effect in deaf individuals (either using a spoken or a sign language) and in control hearing subjects using a task requiring to discriminate words from alphabetic character strings. No difference was found betwixt deaf individuals, using spoken language, and controls while deaf individuals using sign language showed an advantage for words perchance pointing to a lexical strategy in subjects experienced in this mode of communication.
In the present study our aim was to examine which psycholinguistic variables bear upon the reading performance of the deaf individuals in order to find if and how these may differ from what is observed with hearing subjects. To this purpose, nosotros examined the role of visual, phonological, lexical and semantic and variables in modulating the vocal reaction times (RT) and accuracy in reading aloud unmarried words. In detail, we aimed to evaluate a wide spectrum of variables including visual (letter confusability), sub-lexical (length, grapheme contextuality), lexical (frequency, N-size, stress) and semantic (historic period of acquisition and imageability) processes. In full general, based on the reviewed literature, we expected spared lexical and semantic processing in deafened individuals while some deficits may me envisaged in the example of sub-lexical (phonological) effects such as length and grapheme contextuality. Finally, we besides evaluated the possibility that deaf subjects would be particularly sensitive to visual parameters, such as visual confusability. In this vein, it should be considered that for some time it has been idea that the part of visual confusability would emerge more than clearly in the reading of non-lexical items, i.eastward. pseudo-words. Withal, more recent testify indicates that some effect of visual confusability is observed also in the case of discussion recognition (Marcet & Perea, 2017, 2018) . In this study we focus on deaf individuals who have reached a reasonably skillful level of oral (and sign) advice: in fact, we examine young adults who had completed loftier school and were proficient in both oral lipreading and Italian sign linguistic communication and compare them to a group of control subjects matched for gender, age and education.
Note that, when two groups vary for general level of functioning, differences in specific experimental conditions may depend upon the combined event of global differences in cognitive speed and the specific influence of a given experimental manipulations. The exam of vocal RTs allowed evaluating the possible contribution of a global cistron in the reading times of deaf subjects. In this vein, a deficient performance by deaf subjects does not necessarily imply a specific deficit of the bailiwick, only may represent the result of the influence of global components on the performance across reading atmospheric condition. The presence of a full general speed deficit may bear on the functioning beyond different conditions also as affect the size of the group result, producing larger groups differences in a "slower" group with respect to a respective "fast" control grouping ( Faust et al., 1999 refer to this as the "over-additivity" effect and use information technology to interpret the slowing produced by crumbling). As the reviewed enquiry generally pointed to sizeable group differences in the reading skills of deaf and hearing subjects, we thought it would be interesting to examine whether at least function of these differences could be explained in terms of a global factor. To this aim we referred to the rate and amount model (RAM, Faust et al., 1999 ) and the difference engine model (DEM, Myerson et al., 2003 ). These two models provide complementary predictions on the detection of global components in the data and have already be found useful when examining the reading skills of dyslexic children in comparison to typically developing peers (due east.g. Zoccolotti et al., 2008; Marinelli et al., 2011, 2014; Paizi et al., 2013 ).
Overall, we compared deaf and hearing immature adults in a unmarried give-and-take reading aloud task with the aim to quantify their reading impairment and describe which psycholinguistic factors, if any, would characterize best their difficulty. For the first time, we besides tested for the possible presence of a global factor in deaf readers. Finally, we likewise examined whether deaf and hearing individuals would differ in terms of text comprehension skills.
2. Method
ii.1. Participants
Participants were 13 deaf young adults (7M, 6F, hateful age = 36.64 years; SD = 9.91) and 13 matched command subjects. Information concerning the deaf subjects was collected through the compilation of a specifically created anamnestic report.
The following inclusion criteria were used to select the sample of deaf individuals:
· Diagnosis of deafness (hearing damage ≥ seventy db);
· Absence of cerebral disorders (investigated past SPM examination, Raven, 2008 );
· Absence of other sensory, psychiatric or neurological deficits, except deafness.
Sociodemographic characteristics of participants
Table 1 reports the socio-demographic information of the sample. The whole group was resident in Puglia; most participants lived in the province of Lecce
Table 1. Socio-demographic information of deafened and control individuals.
and only two resided in Brindisi. Notation that all participants had a high educational qualification, i.e. second-level high school diploma or professional qualification.
The performance of deaf individuals was compared to that of a group of hearing command subjects, matched i by one with the deafened individuals for gender, historic period and educational qualifications. As an effect of the option procedure, groups did not differ for gender distribution likewise for age and educational level (in both cases ts about 0).
Nine individuals had hearing parents while iv had both deaf parents. Participants with hearing parents used the Italian vocal language within the family context just also had good noesis of Italian Sign Language (ISL). Participants with deaf parents early caused ISL but likewise had skilful lipreading skills. As for type of deafness, 66% of participants had congenital deafness and 34% acquired, with an average age of the diagnosis of 21 months (SD = fifteen.6). As for the use of hearing aids, l% of the sample stated that they did non employ them at all due to physical discomforts of diverse kinds; 44% of the subjects stated that they used hearing aids assiduously; the remaining six% stated that they used the aids sporadically. None of the subjects had had cochlear implantation.
two.2. Materials and Process
Text comprehension skills
The comprehension of text was examined through the Advanced 3 MT exam (Cornoldi et al., 2017) . The participant reads a text passage without a time limit and responds to x multiple-choice questions. The participant tin can check the text again if necessary. The MT comprehension test allows assessing the power to make semantic inferences and the ability to catch the specific meaning of information provided in the text. Quite often the text does not explicitly offer all the information; therefore, the reader is called, at various levels, to make deductions that require the links between distant parts of the text. Moreover, the inferential process requires that the information, provided in various ways to the reader, should be correctly analysed and interpreted. The ability to encompass the written text is evaluated in terms of the number of correct responses to the questions apropos the text.
Reading skills
Words from the Varless 2 database ( Burani et al., 2015 ; https://www.istc.cnr.it/information technology/grouppage/varless) were singly presented to the subjects in a computerized reading aloud test. This database contains 626 morphologically simple Italian nouns, for which information on several psycholinguistic variables, such as age of acquisition, familiarity, imagination, concreteness, word frequency, the number of neighbours (N-size), bigram frequency, length, stress and visual confusability, is available.
Also based on previous research, words in the Varless two database tin exist organized in several different sub-lists aimed to test the effect of specific variables. In detail, the sub-lists considered here examined the effect of stress assignment (Marinelli, 2010) , length (De Luca et al., 2008) , frequency (Barca et al., 2007) , contextual rules (i.e. letters such as c and g, requiring analysis of subsequent messages in order to by pronounced correctly, Barca et al., 2007 ), age of acquisition (Mazzotta et al., 2005) , word imageability and frequency (Mazzotta et al., 2005) , N-size (Marinelli et al., in grooming) , and visual confusability by length (Marinelli et al., in preparation) . Information technology should exist noted that some words appeared in more than than one experimental sub-listing, even though children read it only once. As specified beneath, the reference to the arrangement in sub-lists was used to take a sufficient number of means to test global components in the data (while general analyses on the upshot of psycholinguistic variables were carried on the whole Varless 2 database).
Words were presented through the SuperLab software in five blocks to avoid attentional drops. Words were presented in the eye of a computer screen. Each letter subtended 0.4 cm horizontally (which, at a distance of 57 cm, corresponds to 0.4 deg of visual angle) with font Verdana and size 42. Each item was preceded by a fixation point (750 ms) and disappeared afterwards subject'due south response. There was a 250 ms inter-trial interval. The participants read aloud as quickly and equally accurately as possible each word presented on the heart of the PC screen. A brief do with 3 stimuli preceded the experiment.
The plan recorded the onset of the song response, while the experimenter manually recorded errors in the field of study'south production with the support of an sound-recorder. Notation that only errors were scored, while pronunciation defects were non penalized in deafened subjects.
The RTs corresponding to errors were not included in the analyses. Self-corrections were considered errors and the corresponding RTs were not included in the analyses. False responses and invalid trials (i.eastward. responses lower than 300 ms or higher than 3000 ms) were excluded from the analyses (0.12% for control and 2.25% for deafened participants, respectively; t(25) = two.95, p < 0.01).
2.3. Procedure
Testing was conducted individually in an isolated room. Test instructions were given both in Italian and in ISL. Subjects were informed well-nigh the experimental procedure and gave their written consent to participate to the study and to the recording of reading performance. The study was conducted according to the principles of the Helsinki Annunciation.
2.four. Information Analysis
As to global components in the data, since RAM (Faust et al., 1999) and DEM (Myerson et al., 2003) brand explicit predictions express to open up scale measures, the analyses were limited to vocal RTs and not for accuracy.
In item, co-ordinate to the DEM, the condition means were plotted against the standard deviations of the aforementioned conditions separately for the two groups of subjects (Myerson et al., 2003) . The model allows isolating, in the individual performance, a cognitive-decisional compartment (that corresponds to the cardinal cognitive processing and might be affected in a multiplicative way past task difficulty) from a sensory-motor compartment (that adds to the individual functioning the "constant" fourth dimension necessary for sensory processing and motor plan and may estimate thought the intercept on the x-centrality). To yield a sufficient number of condition means we calculated means and SDs based on several sub-lists (every bit presented in the Method department) which could be derived from the whole presentation of the Varless 2 database. Note that these condition ways were used only to the specific aim of detecting global components while the actual effect of the psycholinguistic variables was tested with the more than powerful linear mixed effect models analyses considering the whole Varless 2 database (meet description below).
2d, we examined whether the slowness of deafened individuals could be ascribed to the presence of a global factor past means of a Brinley plot. In this way, the prediction of RAM of a linear relationship between the condition means of the 2 groups was tested.
Next, we examined the possible role of psycholinguistic variables in influencing reading accuracy and speed in reading single words. Initial examination of data indicated a near flawless performance from hearing command subjects who were correct in 99.88% of times (SD = 0.97). Also, performance of deaf individuals was high (95.29%; SD = 5.43) though somewhat lower (t = 20.7, p < 0.0001) than that of hearing subjects. The presence of a ceiling outcome in command subjects prevented from further analyses of accurateness scores. Thus, statistical analyses focussed on RT information only.
Specifically, we run linear mixed effect models analyses on the vocal RTs of the 2 groups. The whole set of 626 words presented was entered in the analyses. Every bit nosotros wanted to examine several psycholinguistic factors, for applied reasons, we chose to perform two dissever analyses, distributing visual, phonological, lexical and semantic variables approximately in the two analyses. In the beginning one, we entered as fixed factors: word length (number of letters, range four - 9), contextual rules (number of contextual rules, range 0 - 4), frequency (values co-ordinate to Colfis database, Bertinetto et al., 2005 , but reported to one 1000000 of occurrences; range: 0 - 856) and imageability (rating according to Varless 2 database; Burani et al., 2015 ; range 1.89 - 6.68), as well equally group (deaf and control subjects). Additionally, also the group factors in interaction with all aforesaid variables as stock-still factors were added to the model in order to check if these variables affected the ii groups differently. Items and participants were added equally random factors. In the 2nd model, we entered as fixed factors: letter confusability (mean values for each word; range: 1.75 - 2.73), North-size (number of neighbours co-ordinate to Colfis database, Bertinetto et al., 2005 , range 0 - 28), age of conquering (rating according to Varless 2 database; Burani et al., 2015 ; range 1.09 - 6.77), and stress (on the penultimate vs. antepenultimate syllable), equally well as group (deaf and control subjects). Also in this case, the interaction between grouping and all aforesaid variables were added to the model as stock-still factors, in gild to bank check whether groups were differently modulated past these variables. Items and participants were added as random factors.
Performance in text comprehension was compared in the two groups of participants by t test analysis.
3. Results
three.1. Detecting Global Components in the Data
In Effigy 1, condition means are plotted confronting the standard deviations of the same weather separately for the two groups of subjects (as envisaged past the DEM model, Myerson et al., 2003 ). The fit of the linear regression is reasonably high (r2 = 0.83) with an intercept on the 10-centrality of 496.half dozen and a slope of 0.59, indicating that variability increases as a part of status's difficulty. These two values are compatible with previous reports on reading information (Zoccolotti et al., 2018) ; also note that reading aloud tasks tend to produce higher slopes and higher intercepts (Zoccolotti et al., 2018) than most other speeded tasks (Myerson et al., 2003) . Overall, deafened participants are slower than controls simply their inter-private variability in RTs grows by the aforementioned factor as it occurs in hearing participants. Thus, deaf participants were not just slower than hearing command subjects, but also more variable, coherently with the police of RTs that states that the spread of the distribution grows as a part of the hateful (Wagenmakers & Brown, 2007) .
As the condition means of the two groups did non overlap, in order to get a more continuous distribution nosotros replicated the means versus standard deviations plot also using performance on single words in the database, averaging across deafened and hearing subjects, respectively. The relevant data are presented in Figure ii. The fit of the linear regression is moderate (r2 = 0.42) with an intercept on the x-axis of 441.four and a slope of 0.65, confirming a full general tendency for variability to increment as a function of condition's difficulty.
Adjacent, we tested whether the slowness of deafened individuals could exist ascribed to the presence of a global factor. To this aim, the prediction of RAM (Faust et al., 1999) of a linear human relationship between the condition means of the ii groups was examined. The resulting Brinley plot is presented in Effigy iii. The dotted diagonal line in the graph indicates the reference for identical performance in the two groups. Inspection of the figure indicates a linear relationship accounting for all conditions (r2 = 0.51). The intercept of the linear fit is 135.51, indicating that deaf subjects were about 136 ms slower than controls. However, their slowness did not vary in a multiplicative style with the difficulty of experimental conditions. In fact, as shown in Figure 3, the slope was close to unity (b = 0.93) and the regression line was about parallel to the diagonal dotted line, indicating that both groups were modulated in a similar way by condition difficulty (as due to the influence of psycholinguistic variables).
Figure i. Condition means (in ms) are plotted confronting the standard deviations of the corresponding atmospheric condition. Data of deaf and control subjects are separately presented.
Figure two. Hateful for individual words (in ms) are plotted confronting standard deviations. Information of deaf and command subjects are separately presented.
Figure 3. Condition means (in ms) of deaf and command subjects are plotted confronting each other. The dotted diagonal line indicates the reference for identical functioning in the 2 groups.
Summary of results
Overall, information confirmed that deaf children read slower than hearing controls across conditions. However, this slowness was not affected by a multiplicative gene and both groups were modulated in a similar way by condition difficulty (i.east. as an consequence of psycholinguistic variables). Rather the difference could be explained in terms of constant value (intercept). Based on the RAM, the slowness in reading of deaf individuals does not depend upon the influence of a global (multiplicative) factor. For this reason, we did not go along with the transformation of raw data in z score as suggested by RAM model in example of the existence of a global factor affecting performances (Faust et al., 1999) .
three.ii. Exam of Psycholinguistic Variables Affecting Reading Accuracy and Speed
To examine the influence of psycholinguistic variables on discussion recognition, we run 2 divide linear mixed furnishings models on vocal RTs.
Results of the first model highlighted the significance of the main effects of the grouping gene (F( one,15677) = 71.17, p < 0.0001; β = 37.38): deaf subjects were slower than controls (mean RTs = 721.54 ms and 685 ms, respectively; diff. = 36.5). The master effect of length (F(i,15677) = ten.73, p < 0.001; β = ii.78) indicated that RTs slowed by an boilerplate of 3.v ms per each additional letter of the alphabet (mean RT latencies were 627 ms, 639 ms, 645 ms, 654 ms, and 645 ms for four, 5, six, seven, 8 and 9-letter words, respectively). The effect of the contextual rules gene was meaning (F( 1,15677) = 8.26, p < 0.01; β = 5.83). As expected, a greater number of contextual rules in the word yielded slower vocal RTs: words without contextual rules were read on average in 639 ms, words including one grapheme with a contextual dominion in 643 ms and words with two or more than complex graphemes in 656 ms. The word frequency chief effect was significant (F( ane,15677) = fourteen.49, p < 0.0001; β = −0.06). Word frequency affected vocal RTs particularly for lower frequency stimuli: stimuli belonging to the 1st tertile of the discussion frequency distribution (i.e. more infrequent words) were read on average in 658 ms, while words in the 2nd and 3rd tertile (i.e. medium and loftier frequency stimuli) were read with faster (and similar) RTs (mean of 637 and 634 ms, respectively). The main effect of the imageability factor (F( 1,15677) = iv.84, p < 0.05; β = −2.53) indicated that more imageable words (3rd tertile = 639 ms) were read faster than words with medium and lower imageability (2nd and 1st tertile = both 645 ms). The analysis highlighted that the grouping factor did not interact with any psycholinguistic variable examined: thus, the same blueprint of psycholinguistic variables affecting reading speed was comparable in the two groups of subjects. Random effects of items and participants were both not meaning (Zs < 1).
Results of the second model highlighted the significance of the main effects of the group (F( i,15677) = 49.51, p < 0.0001; β = 26.08): Deafened subjects were slower than controls (mean RTs = 735 ms and 699 ms, respectively). Vocal RTs decreased equally a office of visual confusability (F( i,15677)= 14.28, p < 0.0001; β = −29.94), passing from 647 ms of the 1st tertile (high-confusability words), to 643 ms to the twond tertile (medium-confusability words), to 639 ms of the 3rd tertile (depression-confusability words). Age of acquisition afflicted vocal RTs (F(ane,15677) = xix.07, p < 0.0001; β = v.39) especially for early acquired words: stimuli belonging to the 1st tertile of the historic period of acquisition distribution (i.east. early acquired words) were read on boilerplate in 634 ms, while words in 2nd tertile in 646 ms and words acquired afterward (i.e. 3rd tertile) in 650 ms. The consequence of stress (F(1,15677)= 4.82, p < 0.05; β = 5.22) highlighted that readers of both groups were faster in reading typically stressed words (i.e. words with the stress on penultimate syllable; M = 641 ms) than atypically stressed words (i.eastward. words with stress on antepenultimate syllable; M = 653 ms). The analysis indicated that the group factor did not interact with any psycholinguistic variable examined: thus, the aforementioned blueprint of psycholinguistic variables affecting reading speed was comparable in the two groups. Random effects of items and participants were both not significant (Zs < 1).
Annotation that the N-size effect was non significant in this analysis (F( 1,15677)= 1.16, ns; β = 0.49). In order to farther explore this upshot, the analysis was replicated adding in the model the Frequency by Northward-size interaction, also every bit the Grouping by Frequency by N-size interaction. Apart from the previously described results, the analysis confirmed the absence of a master effect of N-size (F(one,15673)= 0.02, ns; β = −0.02), but indicated the presence of the Northward-size by frequency interaction (F(1,15673) = five.25, p < 0.05; β = −0.01) pointing to a facilitatory effect of a large N-size for low- and very depression-frequency words while no result was present for high- and medium-frequency words. However, also in this case, the Group past Frequency past N-size interaction was not significant indicating that the influence of North-size factor was like in the two groups too in the case of depression frequency words. Also the other interactions with the group factor were again all non significant. Finally, the random furnishings of items and participants were both not significant (Zs < 1).
Summary of results
Deafened participants were slower in reading with respect to hearing subjects. However, their reading performance was modulated past the aforementioned variables affecting unimpaired readers. In fact, reading speed of both groups was affected by all the visual, lexical, sublexical and semantic variables examined, and no effect interacted with the group factor.
Deaf subjects reached a moderately practiced accurateness in reading (95.29%), even though their operation was lower with respect to that of hearing command participants, for whom the errors were about absent. Annotation that the presence of ceiling effect in accuracy data did not allow investigating whether, in reading accuracy, deaf participants were modulated past psycholinguistic variables in a dissimilar way with respect to hearing subjects.
3.three. Reading Comprehension
Deafened subjects had a lower accuracy in text comprehension (52.iii%; SD = 2.62) compared to control participants (83.xiii%; SD = 1.18; t( 25) = 3.54, p < 0.001).
4. Discussion
The study investigated the reading skills of deaf subjects with a item interest in the office of psycholinguistic variables and also taking into account the possible influence of a global gene. To this aim, we examined visual, phonological, lexical and semantic effects in order to empathize whether one or more of them would affect the reading of deaf individuals in a peculiar way with respect to hearing subjects. To obtain a sufficiently reliable cheque of the effects of these variables we presented the participants with the whole set of words in the Varless 2 database. Results generally confirmed the effectiveness of this approach. Indeed, significant effects were obtained for letter confusability, discussion length, frequency, and imageability, age of conquering and stress as expected (Barca et al., 2002) . Besides, the effect of N-size was detected when nested with give-and-take frequency as previously reported (Barca et al., 2007; Marinelli et al., 2013) . Thus, the pattern of the study appears sufficiently powerful to discover any modify in reading processes past deafened readers if they were present. Overall, the results indicated that as a group deaf young adults were slower and also less accurate than controls closely matched on gender, age and educational level. Yet, the group difference was quantitatively pocket-size (ca. 35 ms) and the reading speed of the two groups was modulated in a similar way by the variables examined. Indeed, no interaction with the group gene approached significance, indicating that the impact of the psycholinguistic variables considered was like in the 2 groups.
The application of the RAM model (Faust et al., 1999) on vocal RTs highlighted the absenteeism of a global factor affecting reading of deaf individuals. According to the RAM model, full general "cognitive speed" and level of processing required to perform a given task (or "difficulty") interact multiplicatively to produce actual reading performance. In the present data, the differences between the two groups grew linearly as a function of condition difficulty, but the slope of the linear regression was near unity, indicating the absence of a multiplicative difference between the two groups as a function of condition difficulty. This highlights that group differences were "genuine", i.e. non due to an over-additivity effect (or global factor). This finding highlights the qualitative difference betwixt the reading slowness of deaf individuals and that of other clinical samples, such equally dyslexic children (for a review see Zoccolotti et al., 2019 ), for which over-additivity accounts for a large proportion of the reading slowness. Across conditions, deafened subjects were slower in reading compared to hearing participants. However, this grouping divergence did not grow numerically every bit a office of status difficulty, but it was abiding.
It is not entirely clear how this constant value should be interpreted. On logical grounds, it may be thought to indicate the longer time spent for planning the articulatory motility by deaf participants compared to controls. Indeed, the quality of phonological output was more often than not poor and a lenient scoring arrangement was adopted so as not to penalize the pronunciation defects of deaf subjects. Yet, it should be noted that, if this estimation were correct, one would expect that, in the plot matching condition means and standard deviations, the x-intercept would be slightly longer in the case of the RT means of deafened individuals equally compared to that of command subjects (Myerson et al., 2003) . This pattern could non be detected in the present data and i single regression line accounted reasonably well for the data of both groups in the plot based on the status means as well as in that based on single give-and-take items. However, the grouping divergence was indeed small, amounting to ca. 35 ms in terms of group means. Therefore, it is possible that the plot analysis was simply not sensitive enough to discover such a small difference. Ideally, ane should have a larger spread of condition means to obtain a reliable estimate of the intercept on the x axis separately for the two groups of individuals. At any rate, what seems clear, based on models of RTs, such equally RAM (Faust et al., 1999) and DEM (Myerson et al., 2003) , is that the present data are not in keeping with the idea that the central, or decisional, components of the reading process are impaired in deafened individuals.
A minor but detectable group difference was nowadays likewise in terms of reading accuracy. As controls were near ceiling, it was non possible to examine this grouping difference farther. It appears that a different experimental design is necessary if one wants to examine differences in terms of reading accurateness.
Results showed a marked difference between deaf and control subjects in comprehension skills: deaf participants had a lower performance in the task of comprehending a written text than hearing control subjects, coherently with previous results (due east.g. Wauters et al., 2006 ). Information technology does non seem likely that the comprehension difficulty of deafened subjects tin can exist entirely explained past issues in discussion decoding as these were comparatively pocket-sized as compared to the comprehension deficit. On the contrary, it has been proposed that general linguistic difficulties may contribute to this outcome (Musselman, 2000) . Further, it is possible that difficulties in comprehending syntactic contrasts may as well contribute in dampening functioning in text comprehension (Bishop, 1983) .
To place the present results in a context is important to consider the characteristics of our samples: The deaf young adults examined here had completed high school and were skillful both in using oral communication and ISL. Therefore, it seems important to restrict the interpretation of the present findings in light of these characteristics of the examined sample. The literature on reading skills of deaf individuals emphasizes the presence of big individual differences which are still not fully comprehended (due east.g. Bélanger & Rayner, 2015 ). In this perspective, the present information are in keeping with the thought that at least a proportion of deaf individuals may achieve a level of performance similar, or only slightly inferior, to that of matched hearing subjects. The present report adds to this decision that, if reading operation is relatively skillful, it is modulated by the same psycholinguistic parameters known to bear upon reading in typically developing individuals. Further enquiry is needed to examine a wider spectrum of reading skills in deaf individuals and how these might be related to the role of visual, phonological, lexical and semantic factors in reading.
five. Decision
Overall, the present finding highlight that the reading skills of deaf young adults were lower than those of a closely matched command group. In particular, as a group they were slower and less authentic in reading single words aloud. However, the grouping difference in reading speed was quantitatively small (ca. 35 ms) and the RTs of deaf individuals were influenced by psycholinguistic variables in a similar fashion as those of the command subjects. Furthermore, the group difference in reading speed was abiding; i.e. it did not vary as a function of condition difficulty. Based on DEM (Myerson et al., 2003) , this indicates that the source of the effect does non involve the central, or decisional, components of the reading procedure.
Therefore, at to the lowest degree in a sample of young adults with good bookish achievement and both oral and sign language communication skills, it appears that the deficit in reading decoding is insufficiently small. By contrast, deaf individuals were markedly affected in the comprehension of a text, indicating that additional factors presumably play a role in this instance. Information technology appears of import to extend these findings to a larger group of deaf individuals with a wider spectrum of communication skills.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of involvement.
References
| [1] | Angelelli, P., Putzolu, A., Iaia, 1000., Marinelli, C. Five., Gasperini, F., Chilosi, A. M., & Brizzolara, D. (2016). Spelling Impairments in Italian Dyslexic Children with and without a History of Early on Linguistic communication Filibuster. Are There Any Differences? Frontiers in Psychology—Educational Psychology, 7, 527. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00527 |
| [2] | Barca, L., Burani, C., & Arduino, L. S. (2002). Give-and-take Naming Times and Psycholinguistic Norms for Italian Nouns. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34, 424-434. https://doi.org/ten.3758/BF03195471 |
| [3] | Barca, L., Ellis, A. Westward., & Burani, C. (2007). Context-Sensitive Rules and Give-and-take Naming in Italian Children. Reading and Writing, twenty, 495-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9040-z |
| [4] | Barca, Fifty., Pezzulo, G., Castrataro, K., Rinaldi, P., & Caselli, M. C. (2013). Visual Word Recognition in Deafened Readers: Lexicality Is Modulated by Communication Way. PLoS ONE, eight, e59080. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059080 |
| [5] | Bélanger, N. North., & Rayner, K. (2013). Frequency and Predictability Effects in Centre Fixations for Skilled and Less-Skilled Deafened Readers. Visual Cognition, 21, 477-497. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.804016 |
| [vi] | Bélanger, N. N., & Rayner, K. (2015). What Eye Movements Reveal about Deaf Readers. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 220-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414567527 |
| [7] | Bélanger, N. Northward., Baum, S. R., & Mayberry, R. I. (2012a). Reading Difficulties in Adult Deafened Readers of French: Phonological Codes, Not Guilty! Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 263-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.568555 |
| [viii] | Bélanger, N. N., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, Chiliad. (2013). Orthographic and Phonological Preview Benefits: Parafoveal Processing in Skilled and Less-Skilled Deafened Readers. The Quarterly Periodical of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2237-2252. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.780085 |
| [9] | Bélanger, N. N., Slattery, T. J., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, One thousand. (2012b). Skilled Deaf Readers Have an Enhanced Perceptual Span in Reading. Psychological Science, 23, 816-823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435130 |
| [10] | Bertinetto, P. Grand., Burani, C., Laudanna, A., Marconi, C., Ratti, D., Rolando, C. et al. (2005). CoLFIS (Corpus due east Lessico di Frequenza dell'Italiano Scritto) [Corpus and Frequency Lexicon of Written Italian]. https://www.istc.cnr.it/it/grouppage/colfis |
| [xi] | Bertone, C., & Volpato, F. (2009) Oral Linguistic communication and Sign Linguistic communication: Possible Approaches for Deaf People's Language Development. Cadernos de Saúde, two, 51-62. |
| [12] | Bishop, D. V. Grand. (1983). Comprehension of English Syntax past Profoundly Deaf Children. Journal of Kid Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 415-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1983.tb00118.x |
| [13] | Blythe, H. I., Dickins, J. H., Kennedy, C. R., & Liversedge, S. P. (2018). Phonological Processing during Silent Reading in Teenagers Who Are Deaf/Difficult of Hearing: An Middle Movement Investigation. Developmental Scientific discipline, 21, e12643. https://doi.org/x.1111/desc.12643 |
| [fourteen] | Brown, C. A., & Bacon, South. P. (2010). Primal Frequency and Speech Intelligibility in Background Dissonance. Hearing Research, 266, 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2009.08.011 |
| [xv] | Burani, C., Arduino, Fifty. S., Marinelli, C. Five., & Barca, L. (2015). Variabili lessicali e sub-lessicali-two: Valori per 626 nomi dell'italiano. https://www.istc.cnr.information technology/it/grouppage/varless |
| [16] | Caselli, M. C., Maragna, S., & Volterra, V. (2006). Linguaggio east Sordità. Gesti. segni e parole nello sviluppo e nell'educazione. Bologna: Il Mulino. |
| [17] | Chesi, C. (2006). Il linguaggio verbale non standard dei bambini sordi. Roma: Edizioni Universitarie Romane. |
| [18] | Chilosi, A. Yard., Brizzolara, D., Lami, L., Pizzoli, C., Gasperini, F., Pecini, C., & Zoccolotti, P. (2009). Reading and Spelling Disabilities in Children with and without a History of Early on Language Filibuster: A Neuropsychological and Linguistic Study. Child Neuropsychology, fifteen, 582-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040902927614 |
| [19] | Conrad, R. (1979). The Deafened Schoolchild. London: Harper and Row. |
| [xx] | Cornoldi, C., Pra Baldi, A., & Giofrè, D. (2017). Prove MT Avanzate-three-Clinica. La valutazione delle abilità di Lettura, Comprensione, Scrittura due east Matematica per il biennio della Scuola Secondaria di 2 Grado. Erikson. |
| [21] | De Luca, M., Barca, L., Burani, C., & Zoccolotti, P. (2008). The Effect of Word Length and Other Sublexical, Lexical and Semantic Variables on Developmental Reading Deficit. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 21, 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0b013e318190d162 |
| [22] | Domìnguez, A. B., & Alegrìa, J. (2010). Reading Mechanisms in Orally Educated Deafened Adults. Journal of Deafened Studies and Deafened Instruction, 15, 136-148. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enp033 |
| [23] | Domínguez, A. B., Carrillo, M. South., del Mar Perez, M., & Alegría, J. (2014). Assay of Reading Strategies in Deaf Adults as a Function of Their Linguistic communication and Meta-Phonological Skills. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 1439-1456. https://doi.org/x.1016/j.ridd.2014.03.039 |
| [24] | Emmorey, K., Midgley, M. J., Kohen, C. B., Sehyr, Z. South., & Holcomb, P. J. (2017). The N170 ERP Component Differs in Laterality, Distribution, and Association with Continuous Reading Measures for Deaf and Hearing Readers. Neuropsychologia, 106, 298-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.10.001 |
| [25] | Faust, One thousand. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., & Ferraro, F. R. (1999). Individual Differences in Information-Processing Rate and Amount: Implications for Group Differences in Response Latency. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 777-799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777 |
| [26] | Fischler, I. (1985). Give-and-take Recognition, Use of Context, and Reading Skill amongst Deaf Higher Students. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 203-218. https://doi.org/ten.2307/747756 |
| [27] | Franchi, E., & Musola, D. (2010). Acquisizione dell'italiano e sordità. Omaggio a Bruna Radelli. Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina. |
| [28] | Geers, A. (2003). Predictors of Reading Skill Evolution in Children with Early Cochlear Implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24, 59S-68S. https://doi.org/ten.1097/01.AUD.0000051690.43989.5D |
| [29] | Geers, A. Eastward., & Hayes, H. (2011). Reading, Writing, and Phonological Processing Skills of Adolescents with ten or More Years of Cochlear Implant Experience. Ear and Hearing, 32, 49S-59S. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181fa41fa |
| [30] | Glezer, 50. S., Weisberg, J., Farnady, C. O. G., McCullough, Southward., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Emmorey, K. (2018). Orthographic and Phonological Selectivity across the Reading Organization in Deaf Skilled Readers. Neuropsychologia, 117, 500-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.010 |
| [31] | Gutierrez-Sigut, Due east., Vergara-Martínez, M., & Perea, M. (2017). Early Use of Phonological Codes in Deaf Readers: An ERP Study. Neuropsychologia, 106, 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.10.006 |
| [32] | Gutierrez-Sigut, E., Vergara-Martínez, 1000., Marcet, A., & Perea, Chiliad. (2018). Automated Utilize of Phonological Codes during Word Recognition in Deafened Signers of Spanish Sign Linguistic communication. Formal and Experimental Advances in Sign Language Theory, 1, 1-15. |
| [33] | Harris, 1000. Y., & Terlektsi, E. (2010). Reading and Spelling Abilities of Deaf Adolescents with Cochlear Implants and Hearing Aids. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educational activity, 16, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enq031 |
| [34] | Johnson, C., & Goswami, U. (2010). Phonological Sensation, Vocabulary, and Reading in Deafened Children with Cochlear Implants. Periodical of Oral communication, Linguistic communication, and Hearing Research, 53, 237-261. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0139) |
| [35] | Kyle, F. Eastward., & Harris, M. (2006). Concurrent Correlates and Predictors of Reading and Spelling Accomplishment in Deaf and Hearing Schoolhouse Children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deafened Instruction, xi, 273-289. https://doi.org/x.1093/deafed/enj037 |
| [36] | Leybaert, J. (1993). Reading in the Deaf: The Roles of Phonological Codes. In M. En, D. Marschark, & Clark (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives in Deafness (pp. 203-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| [37] | Lyxell, B., Sahlén, B., Wass, 1000., Ibertsson, T., Larsby, B., Hällgren, M., & Mäki-Torkko, Eastward. (2008). Cognitive Development in Children with Cochlear Implants: Relations to Reading and Advice. International Journal of Audiology, 47, 47-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992020802307370 |
| [38] | Marcet, A., & Perea, 1000. (2017). Is Nevtral Neutral? Visual Similarity Furnishings in the Early on Phases of Written-Word Recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 1180-1185. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1180-9 |
| [39] | Marcet, A., & Perea, M. (2018). Tin can I Order a Burger at Rnacdonalds.com? Visual Similarity Effects of Multi-Letter Combinations at the Early Stages of Word Recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Retention, and Cognition, 44, 699. https://doi.org/ten.1037/xlm0000477 |
| [40] | Marinelli, C. 5. (2010). Reading and Spelling in Skilled and Dyslexic Children: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Doctoral Dissertation in Cognitive Neuroscience. Rome: Sapienza University. |
| [41] | Marinelli, C. V., Angelelli P., Di Filippo, G., & Zoccolotti, P. (2011). Is Developmental Dyslexia Modality Specific? A Visual-Acoustic Comparing on Italian Dyslexics. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1718-1729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.050 |
| [42] | Marinelli, C. V., Traficante, D., & Zoccolotti, P. (2014). Does Pronounceability Modulate the Letter String Arrears of Children with Dyslexia? A Written report with the Charge per unit and Corporeality Model. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1353. https://doi.org/ten.3389/fpsyg.2014.01353 |
| [43] | Marinelli, C. Five., Traficante, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2013). Orthographic Neighbourhood-Size Effects on the Reading Aloud of Italian Children with and without Dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.723080 |
| [44] | Marinelli, C. V., Trenta, Yard., Benassi, K., Burani, C., & Zoccolotti, P. (in preparation). Psycholinguistic Factors Affecting the Mistake Contour in a Regular Orthography. |
| [45] | Marschark, Chiliad., & Harris, M. (1996). Success and Failure in Learning to Read: The Special Case (?) of Deaf Children. Reading Comprehension Difficulties: Processes and Intervention, 12, 279-300. |
| [46] | Mayberry, R. I., del Giudice, A. A., & Lieberman, A. 1000. (2011). Reading Accomplishment in Relation to Phonological Coding and Awareness in Deaf Readers: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deafened Instruction, 16, 164-188. https://doi.org/ten.1093/deafed/enq049 |
| [47] | Mayer, C., Watson, Fifty., Archbold, S., Ng, Z. Y., & Mulla, I. (2016). Reading and Writing Skills of Deaf Pupils with Cochlear Implants. Deafness & Instruction International, xviii, 71-86. https://doi.org/x.1080/14643154.2016.1155346 |
| [48] | Mazzotta, Southward., Barca, L., Marcolini, S., Stella, G., & Burani, C. (2005). Frequenza, immaginabilità ed età di acquisizione delle parole: In che misura influenzano la lettura dei bambini italiani? Psicologica clinica dello sviluppo, two, 247-266. |
| [49] | McEvoy, C., Marschark, Thou., & Nelson, D. Fifty. (1999). Comparing the Mental Lexicons of Deaf and Hearing Individuals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 312. https://doi.org/ten.1037/0022-0663.91.2.312 |
| [50] | Moeller, M. P., Tomblin, J. B., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., McDonald Connor, C., & Jerger, Due south. (2007). Current Country of Cognition: Language and Literacy of Children with Hearing Damage. Ear and Hearing, 28, 740-753. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318157f07f |
| [51] | Moreno-Pérez, F. J., Saldaña, D., & Rodríguez-Ortiz, I. R. (2015). Reading Efficiency of Deaf and Hearing People in Castilian. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, xx, 374-384. https://doi.org/x.1093/deafed/env030 |
| [52] | Musselman, C. (2000). How Exercise Children Who Can't Hear Learn to Read an Alphabetic Script? A Review of the Literature on Reading and Deafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deafened Education, 5, xi-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.1.9 |
| [53] | Myerson, J., Hale, S., Zheng, Y., Jenkins, Fifty., & Widaman, M. F. (2003). The Departure Engine: A Model of Diversity in Speeded Noesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, x, 262-288. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196491 |
| [54] | Paizi, D., De Luca, M., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2013). A Comprehensive Evaluation of Lexical Reading in Italian Developmental Dyslexics. Periodical of Enquiry in Reading, 36, 303-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2011.01504.ten |
| [55] | Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading Optimally Builds on Spoken Linguistic communication Implications for Deafened Readers. Journal of Deafened Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 32-l. https://doi.org/ten.1093/deafed/5.1.32 |
| [56] | Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested Incremental Modeling in the Evolution of Computational Theories: The CDP+ Model of Reading Aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273-315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.273 |
| [57] | Pisoni, D. B., Kronenberger, W., Conway, C. M., Horn, D. L., Karpicke, J., & Henning, Southward. (2008). Efficacy and Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants in Deaf Children. In M. Marschark, & P. Hauser (Eds.), Deafened Knowledge: Foundations and Outcomes (pp. 52-101). New York: Oxford University Printing. https://doi.org/x.1093/acprof:oso/9780195368673.003.0003 |
| [58] | Raven, C. J. (2008). Standard Progressive Matrices. O.S. Giunti. |
| [59] | Sánchez, E., & García-Rodicio, H. (2006). Re-lectura del estudio PISA: Qué y cómo se evalúa eastward interpreta el rendimiento de los alumnos en la lectura. Revista de Educación, one, 195-226. |
| [lx] | Strong, Thousand., & Prinz, P. Thou. (2000). Is American Sign Linguistic communication Related to English Literacy? In C. Chamberlain, J. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Language Conquering past Eye (pp. 131-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| [61] | Tomblin, B. J., Harrison, Thou., Ambrose, S. E., Walker, E. A., Oleson, J. J., & Moeller, M. P. (2015). Linguistic communication Outcomes in Young Children with Balmy to Severe Hearing Loss. Ear and Hearing, 36, 76S-91S. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000219 |
| [62] | Transler, C., & Reitsma, P. (2005). Phonological Coding in Reading of Deaf Children: Pseudohomophone Effects in Lexical Determination. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 525-542. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X26796 |
| [63] | Wagenmakers, E. J., & Brown, South. (2007). On the Linear Relation betwixt the Mean and the Standard Difference of a Response Time Distribution. Psychological Review, 114, 830-841. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.three.830 |
| [64] | Wang, Ten., Caramazza, A., Peelen, M. V., Han, Z., & Bi, Y. (2014). Reading without Speech Sounds: VWFA and Its Connectivity in the Congenitally Deaf. Cerebral Cortex, 25, 2416-2426. https://doi.org/ten.1093/cercor/bhu044 |
| [65] | Wauters, L. N., Van Bon, W. H. J., & Tellings, A. East. J. Thousand. (2006). Reading Comprehension of Dutch Deaf Children. Reading and Writing, 19, 49-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-004-5894-0 |
| [66] | Williams, C., & Mayer, C. (2015). Writing in Young Deaf Children. Review of Educational Research, 85, 630-666. https://doi.org/ten.3102/0034654314564882 |
| [67] | Zoccolotti, P., De Luca, G., Di Filippo, G., Marinelli, C. V., & Spinelli, D. (2018). Reading and Lexical Conclusion Tasks Generate Dissimilar Patterns of Private Variability as a Office of Status Difficulty. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 25, 1161-1169. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1335-three |
| [68] | Zoccolotti, P., De Luca, Chiliad., Judica, A., & Spinelli, D. (2008). Isolating Global and Specific Factors in Developmental Dyslexia: A Study Based on the Rate and Amount Model (RAM). Experimental Brain Research, 186, 551-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1257-9 |
| [69] | Zoccolotti, P., Marinelli, C. V., Martelli, M., Spinelli, D., & De Luca, M. (2019) Psycholinguistic Factors and Global Components in Developmental Dyslexia. In South. Sulpizio, L. Barca, Southward. Primativo, & L. S. Arduino (Eds.), Word Recognition, Morphology and Lexical Reading: Essays in Honour of Cristina Burani (pp. 67-94). London: College Publications. |
Source: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=95534
0 Response to "Reading and Deaf Individuals: Perspectives on the Qualitative Similarity Hypothesis"
Post a Comment