The long-lasting advantage of learning sign language in childhood: Another look at the critical period for language acquisition

Mayberry, Rachel I.; Eichen, Ellen B.

doi:10.1016/0749-596x(91)90018-f

Cited by 304 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

185

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in contrast to English, previous studies of ASL span report a signed span of only 4-5 signs [21][22][23][24] . The shorter signed STM serial span for ASL has often been attributed to the longer item duration for signs than for speech 7,[19][20][21][22]24 . This explanation is based on evidence showing that, across spoken languages, the slower the pronunciation rate (and thus the longer the item duration), the shorter the spoken STM serial span.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Short-term memory span: insights from sign language

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-term memory (STM), or the ability to hold information in mind for a few seconds, is thought to be limited in its capacity to about 7 ± 2 items. Notably, the average STM capacity when using American Sign Language (ASL) rather than English is only 5 ± 1 items. Here we show that, contrary to previous interpretations, this difference cannot be attributed to phonological factors, item duration or reduced memory abilities in deaf people. We also show that, despite this difference in STM span, hearing speakers and deaf ASL users have comparable working memory resources during language use, indicating similar abilities to maintain and manipulate linguistic information. The shorter STM span in ASL users therefore confirms the view that the spoken span of 7 ± 2 is an exception, probably owing to the reliance of speakers on auditory-based rather than visually based representations in linguistic STM, and calls for adjustments in the norms used with deaf individuals.Working memory refers to the capacity-limited ability to maintain and manipulate information relevant to an ongoing task. Over the years, a large number of studies have focused on the part of working memory dedicated to short-term maintenance of information, which is known as STM. As reports have documented a significant relationship between the size of the STM capacity for linguistic material and language abilities (for review, see refs. 1,2 ), much work has been conducted to uncover the mechanisms underlying the STM capacity limit. One of the most common measures of capacity limits in STM is the digit span task 3 , where subjects must repeat lists of digits in the same order as they are presented (i.e., forward serial recall). The number of digits to be recalled is progressively increased, and the STM span is defined as the longest sequence reported correctly. As noted in a seminal study in 1956 by Miller 4 , our ability to process information in such short-term memory tasks has a capacity limit of seven plus or minus two items. The 'magical number' of 7 ± 2 has been widely confirmed as the capacity limit in STM since this early work.However, the view that 7 ± 2 is the standard capacity of STM has been recently questioned. When non-nameable materials are used, the span of STM drops to four or five items 5 (for review, see ref. 6 ). It has been proposed that a STM span of 7 ± 2 is the exception rather than the rule. One hypothesis is that the exceptionally high STM span of 7 ± 2 is specific to linguistic material and derives from the ability of humans to chunk linguistic information 6 . An alternative possibility, however, is that the exceptionally high STM span of 7 ± 2 might be an effect of modality, arising from greater STM capacity for encoding serial information in auditory STM as compared to visual STM. In the present studies, we examined STM span in native users of ASL, which offers a unique opportunity to separate the contributions of language versus modality to STM capacity.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 73%

“…25 ). Given that similar mechanisms seem to underlie serial recall in both spoken and signed STM, at least three factors could explain the shorter signed STM span previously reported [21][22][23][24] . First, the difference might be due to a greater phonological complexity in signs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Short-term memory span: insights from sign language

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could explain the difference between the results of children educated with CS at home and those in contact with CS only at school. Several authors have discussed the existence of a critical period for the development of analytical language-speci®c processes (Emmorey, Bellugi, Friederici, & Horn, 1995;Locke, 1997;Marcotte & Morere, 1990;Mayberry, 1995;Mayberry & Eichen, 1991;Neville, 1991;Neville et al, 1997). Children exposed to CS only at school might not have received a suf®ciently consistent linguistic experience at an early age, especially before the age of 2 years.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Rhyming Skills of Deaf Children Educated with Phonetically Augmented Speechreading

Charlier

Leybaert

2000

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated whether profoundly deaf children's rhyming ability was determined by the linguistic input that they were exposed to in their early childhood. Children educated with Cued Speech (CS) were compared to other deaf children, educated orally or with sign language. In CS, speechreading is combined with manual cues that disambiguate it. The central hypothesis is that CS allows deaf children to develop accurate phonological representations, which, in turn, assist in the emergence of accurate rhyming abilities. Experiment 1 showed that the deaf children educated early with CS performed better at rhyme judgement than did other deaf children. The performance of early CS-users was not influenced by word spelling. Experiment 2 confirmed this result in a rhyme generation task. Taken together, results support the hypothesis that rhyming ability depends on early exposure to a linguistic input specifying all phonological contrasts, independently of the modality (visual or auditory) in which this input is perceived.

show abstract

“…An intriguing possibility is that the outcome of such simplification processes might be a different quality of phonological representations for native signers compared with late learners. The resulting effects on DCHP's processing abilities could resemble the level of phonological sensitivity attained by second language learners which might explain the findings of Mayberry & Eichen (1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…For a full description of sign language phonology see Brentari (1998). Mayberry and Eichen (1991) addressed phonological processing as a potential mechanism underlying differences in comprehension abilities between native and non-native signers. They reported errors for adult native signers on a sentence shadowing task were coded as mostly semantic substitutions (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%