A comparison of deaf and hearing children in visual memory for digits.

Pintner, Rudolf; Paterson, Donald G.

doi:10.1037/h0072870

Cited by 41 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence consistent with this claim has been obtained repeatedly (for a review, see Cumrning & Rodda, 1985). In tasks requiring the serial recall of linguistic stimuli (whether words, digits, signs, fingerspelling, or pictures), deaf subjects have consistently been found to recall fewer items than hearing subjects, even when confounds with spatial order recall have been eliminated (e.g., Bellugi, Klima, & Siple, 1975;Blair, 1957;Hanson, 1982;Krakow & Hanson, 1985;McDaniel, 1980;Pintner & Paterson, 1917;Wallace & Corballis, 1973;Withrow, 1968). However, in the temporal recall of nonsense stimuli, deaf subjects have not been found to recall fewer items than hearing subjects (McDaniel, 1980;Olsson & Furth, 1966).…”

Section: Ibm Research Division Thomas J Watson Research Center Yormentioning

confidence: 99%

Recall of order information by deaf signers: Phonetic coding in temporal order recall

Hanson

1990

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the claim that phonetic coding plays a special role in temporal order recall, deaf and hearing college students were tested on their recall of temporal and spatial order information at two delay intervals. The deaf subjects were all native signers of American Sign Language. The results indicated that both the deaf and hearing subjects used phonetic coding in short-term temporal recall, and visual coding in spatial recall. There was no evidence of manual or visual coding among either the hearing or the deaf subjects in the temporal order recall task. The use of phonetic coding for temporal recall is consistent with the hypothesis that recall of temporal order information is facilitated by a phonetic code.

show abstract

Section: Ibm Research Division Thomas J Watson Research Center Yormentioning

confidence: 99%

Recall of order information by deaf signers: Phonetic coding in temporal order recall

Hanson

1990

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Natura11y~s evere hearing 10ss from an early stage results in language deficienc ies (Pintner, 1917, Pintner & Paterson, 1916Reamer, 1921). In fact, there was a tendency to regard language impairmen t as the only respect in which deaf and hearing differed cognitive ly, a1though it is now c1ear that this was an oversimp lification .…”

Section: Genera1iz Ed Deficitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term memory and coding strategies in the deaf.

Wallace¹,

Corballis²

1973

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis investigates short term memory processing in orally and manually trained deaf children, as well as in hearing controls. The first two experiments used visual presentation of four-and five-letter sequences. Results were analyzed in terms of the rehearsal strategies, encoding processes and confusions. The results showed not only that the deaf were inferior to the heari.ng, but that they encoded verbal material differently. Both deaf groups, in contrast to the hearing group who relied mainly on articulatory coding, made extensive use of visual coding with four-letter sequences. The evidence also suggested that with the fiveletter sequences, the orally-trained group used articulatory as well as visual coding, whereas the manu al group utilized some other secondary code, which May have been based in part on kinaesthetic cues. The third and final experiment studied the comparative performance of deaf and hearing children on recognition of pictures of faces. For this task, the deaf were superior to the hearing controls. The implica:tions of these findings for short term memory theorists and deaf educators"are discussed.

show abstract

“…digit span. Even when the test is administered in signed language to deaf signers, and despite equal performance on other cognitive tasks between deaf signers and hearing speakers, the difference in digit span persist (Bavelier, Newport, et al, 2008;Pintner & Paterson, 1917;. This difference in capacity has led to the conclusion that deaf persons have poorer STM than hearing speakers (e.g.…”

Section: IImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bavelier, Newport, et al, 2008;Boutla et al, 2004;Pintner & Paterson, 1917;Rudner et al, 2007;. In particular, STM measured by digit span has repeatedly been shown to be poorer in deaf signers.…”

Section: IImentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with Digits : Arithmetic, Memory and Phonology in Deaf Signers

Andin¹

2014

Studies From the Swedish Institute for Disability Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deafness has been associated with poor abilities to deal with digits in the context of arithmetic and memory, and language modality-specific differences in the phonological similarity of digits have been shown to influence short-term memory (STM). Therefore, the overall aim of the present thesis was to find out whether language modality-specific differences in phonological processing between sign and speech can explain why deaf signers perform at lower levels than hearing peers when dealing with digits. To explore this aim, the role of phonological processing in digit-based arithmetic and memory tasks was investigated, using both behavioural and neuroimaging methods, in adult deaf signers and hearing non-signers, carefully matched on age, sex, education and nonverbal intelligence. To make task demands as equal as possible for both groups, and to control for material effects, arithmetic, phonological processing, STM and working memory (WM) were all assessed using the same presentation and response mode for both groups. The results suggested that in digit-based STM, phonological similarity of manual numerals causes deaf signers to perform more poorly than hearing non-signers. However, for digit-based WM there was no difference between the groups, possibly due to differences in allocation of resources during WM. This indicates that similar WM for the two groups can be generalized from lexical items to digits. Further, we found that in the present work deaf signers performed better than expected and on a par with hearing peers on all arithmetic tasks, except for multiplication, possibly because the groups studied here were very carefully matched. However, the neural networks recruited for arithmetic and phonology differed between groups. During multiplication tasks, deaf signers showed an increased reliance on cortex of the right parietal lobe complemented by the left inferior frontal gyrus. In contrast, hearing non-signers relied on cortex of the left frontal and parietal lobe during multiplication. This suggests that while hearing non-signers recruit phonology-dependent arithmetic fact retrieval processes for multiplication, deaf signers recruit non-verbal magnitude manipulation processes. For phonology, the hearing non-signers engaged left lateralized frontal and parietal areas within the classical perisylvian language network. In deaf signers, however, phonological processing was limited to cortex of the left occipital lobe, suggesting that sign-based phonological processing does not necessarily activate the classical language network. In conclusion, the findings of the present thesis suggest that language modality-specific differences between sign and speech in different ways can explain why deaf signers perform at lower levels than hearing non-signers on tasks that include dealing with digits.

show abstract

A comparison of deaf and hearing children in visual memory for digits.

Cited by 41 publications

References 0 publications

Recall of order information by deaf signers: Phonetic coding in temporal order recall

Recall of order information by deaf signers: Phonetic coding in temporal order recall

Short-term memory and coding strategies in the deaf.

Dealing with Digits : Arithmetic, Memory and Phonology in Deaf Signers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About