Understanding Language, Hearing Status, and Visual-Spatial Skills

Abstract

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.

Social Maturity and Executive Function Among Deaf Learners

“…Finally, any or all of the above reasons might result in deaf learners having delays, deficits, or simply differences in social maturity-related executive functioning (EF) relative to hearing peers. This possibility would be consistent with emerging evidence with regard to links between EF and performance among deaf learners in other domains (e.g., Kronenberger, Colson, Henning, & Pisoni, 2014;Marschark, Spencer, et al, 2015). These alternatives are considered below as background to a study that was aimed at better understanding possible relations among social maturity and EF among deaf learners.…”

“…Marschark, Spencer et al (2015) also found a significant relationship between EF and spoken language among deaf college students who used CIs and relied primarily on spoken language, whereas deaf students who did not use CIs and relied primarily on sign language demonstrated a strong association of EF with sign language ability as well as with age of sign language acquisition. Importantly, better scores on measures of both communication and EF have been associated with more prosocial behavior, fewer behavior problems, and fewer problems in peer relationships (Hintermair, 2013).…”

“…The original parent-report version of the LEAF has been used extensively in studies by Kronenberger and colleagues involving deaf children and young adults with CIs and their hearing peers. Marschark, Spencer et al (2015) used a self-report adaptation of the LEAF identical to the parent-report version but with items worded in the first person with deaf and hearing college students. Reports from both deaf and hearing participants indicated that some of the items were difficult to understand, particularly when there were complex grammatical or apparent mismatches between item content and wording of the rating subscale.…”

“…Although the direction of causality is unclear and may be bidirectional, studies of EF, communication competence, and social-behavioral problems among school-aged and adolescent deaf students have found communicative competence and language skills to be strongly related to EF (Figueras et al, 2008;Hintermair, 2013;Kronenberger, Colson et al, 2014;Marschark, Spencer et al, 2015;Remine, Care, & Brown, 2008). Marschark, Spencer et al (2015) also found a significant relationship between EF and spoken language among deaf college students who used CIs and relied primarily on spoken language, whereas deaf students who did not use CIs and relied primarily on sign language demonstrated a strong association of EF with sign language ability as well as with age of sign language acquisition.…”

“…As described below, participants completed the self-report version of the LEAF described by Marschark, Spencer et al (2015) or an alternative, language-revised version. A subset of the participants also completed a questionnaire addressing socially mature and immature behaviors.…”