It is frequently assumed that deaf individuals have superior visual-spatial abilities relative to hearing peers and thus, in educational settings, they are often considered visual learners. There is some empirical evidence to support the former assumption, although it is inconsistent, and apparently none to support the latter. Three experiments examined visual-spatial and related cognitive abilities among deaf individuals who varied in their preferred language modality and use of cochlear implants (CIs) and hearing individuals who varied in their sign language skills. Sign language and spoken language assessments accompanied tasks involving visual-spatial processing, working memory, nonverbal logical reasoning, and executive function. Results were consistent with other recent studies indicating no generalized visual-spatial advantage for deaf individuals and suggested that their performance in that domain may be linked to the strength of their preferred language skills regardless of modality. Hearing individuals performed more strongly than deaf individuals on several visual-spatial and self-reported executive functioning measures, regardless of sign language skills or use of CIs. Findings are inconsistent with assumptions that deaf individuals are visual learners or are superior to hearing individuals across a broad range of visual-spatial tasks. Further, performance of deaf and hearing individuals on the same visual-spatial tasks was associated with differing cognitive abilities, suggesting that different cognitive processes may be involved in visual-spatial processing in these groups.

In the education of deaf learners, from primary school to postsecondary settings, it frequently is suggested that deaf students are visual learners. That assumption appears to be based on the visual nature of signed languages—used by some but not all deaf individuals—and the fact that with greater hearing losses, deaf students will rely relatively more on vision than audition. However, the questions of whether individuals with hearing loss are more likely to be visual learners than verbal learners or more likely than hearing peers to be visual learners have not been empirically explored. Several recent studies, in fact, have indicated that hearing learners typically perform as well or better than deaf learners on a variety of visual-spatial tasks. The present study used two standardized instruments to examine learning styles among college deaf students who primarily rely on sign language or spoken language and their hearing peers. The visual-verbal dimension was of particular interest. Consistent with recent indirect findings, results indicated that deaf students are no more likely than hearing students to be visual learners and are no stronger in their visual skills and habits than their verbal skills and habits, nor are deaf students’ visual orientations associated with sign language skills. The results clearly have specific implications for the educating of deaf learners.

Two experiments examined relations among social maturity, executive function, language, and cochlear implant (CI) use among deaf high school and college students. Experiment 1 revealed no differences between deaf CI users, deaf nonusers, and hearing college students in measures of social maturity. However, deaf students (both CI users and nonusers) reported significantly greater executive function (EF) difficulties in several domains, and EF was related to social maturity. Experiment 2 found that deaf CI users and nonusers in high school did not differ from each other in social maturity or EF, but individuals who relied on sign language reported significantly more immature behaviors than deaf peers who used spoken language. EF difficulties again were associated with social maturity. The present results indicate that EF and social maturity are interrelated, but those relations vary in different deaf subpopulations. As with academic achievement, CI use appears to have little long-term impact on EF or social maturity. Results are discussed in terms of their convergence with findings related to incidental learning and functioning in several domains.

No abstract

Background Increasing numbers of adults are receiving cochlear implants (CIs) and many achieve high levels of speech perception and improved quality of life. However, a proportion of implant recipients still struggle due to limited speech recognition and/or greater communication demands in their daily lives. For these individuals a program of aural rehabilitation (AR) has the potential to improve outcomes. Purpose The study investigated the effects of a short-term AR intervention on speech recognition, functional communication, and psychosocial outcomes in post lingually deafened adult CI users. Research Design The experimental design was a multisite clinical study with participants randomized to either an AR treatment or active control group. Each group completed 6 weekly 90-minute individual treatment sessions. Assessments were completed pretreatment, 1 week and 2 months post-treatment. Study Sample Twenty-five post lingually deafened adult CI recipients participated. AR group: mean age 66.2 (48–80); nine females, four males; months postactivation 7.7 (3–16); mean years severe to profound deafness 18.4 (2–40). Active control group: mean age 62.8 (47–85); eight females, four males; months postactivation 7.0 (3–13); mean years severe to profound deafness 18.8 (1–55). Intervention The AR protocol consisted of auditory training (words, sentences, speech tracking), and psychosocial counseling (informational and communication strategies). Active control group participants engaged in cognitive stimulation activities (e.g., crosswords, sudoku, etc.). Data Collection and Analysis Repeated measures ANOVA or analysis of variance, MANOVA or multivariate analysis of variance, and planned contrasts were used to compare group performance on the following measures: CasperSent; Hearing Handicap Inventory; Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire; Client Oriented Scale of Improvement; Glasgow Benefit Inventory. Results The AR group showed statistically significant improvements on speech recognition performance, psychosocial function, and communication goals with no significant improvement seen in the control group. The two groups were statistically equivalent on all outcome measures at preassessment. The robust improvements for the AR group were maintained at 2 months post-treatment. Conclusion Results of this clinical study provide evidence that a short-term AR intervention protocol can maximize outcomes for adult post lingually deafened CI users. The impact of this brief multidimensional AR intervention to extend CI benefit is compelling, and may serve as a template for best practices with adult CI users.