Visual and Phonological Coding in Working Memory and Orthographic Skills of Deaf Children Using...

Visual and Phonological Coding in Working Memory and OrthographicSkills of Deaf Children Using Chilean Sign Language

Jesús M. AlvaradoAníbal PuenteValeria Herrera

American Annals of the Deaf, Volume 152, Number 5, Winter2008, pp. 467-479 (Article)

Published by Gallaudet University PressDOI: 10.1353/aad.2008.0009

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by Utah State University Libraries at 11/03/11 10:36PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/aad/summary/v152/152.5alvarado.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/aad/summary/v152/152.5alvarado.html

VOLUME 152, NO. 5, 2008 AMERICAN ANNALS OF THE DEAF

467

On

e

Hu

n d r e d a n d Si x

ty

Y

ea

rs160

VISUAL AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING IN WORKING

MEMORY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC SKILLS OF DEAF

CHILDREN USING CHILEAN SIGN LANGUAGE

The present study explores the role ofsign language in the development ofreading and orthographic abilities with-in deaf populations. During the last twodecades, debate surrounding the rele-vance of speech-based coding versus vi-sual-based and manual-based codinghas increased.

Diverse factors have the potentialto contribute to deaf people’s poorreading performance, including lackof phonological understanding, re-duced working memory (WM) capac-ity, and coding difficulties (Paul, 1998).While the first two factors are gener-ally cited as the most significant to thereading performance of hearing peo-ple (Alegria, 2003), specialists point tothe importance of the last two factors(reduced WM capacity and coding dif-

ficulties) for the deaf. Many years ago,teachers of deaf students noticed astriking contrast between these stu-dents and hearing children in terms ofmemory. Marschark and Mayer (1998)suggest that this contrast exists becausethere is an assumption that deaf in-dividuals do not have available theacoustic, articulatory, or phonologicalcodes that underlie WM in hearing indi-viduals. They further suggest that thisraises the question of whether thereare alternative language codes that sup-port retention over brief intervals.

WM is a system that temporarilyholds and manipulates information in awide range of essential cognitive tasks,including reading. However, WM is nota single system but rather a multipleone: It is simultaneously an attention

EAF CHILDREN can improve their reading skills by learning to use alter-native, visual codes such as fingerspelling. A sample of 28 deaf childrenbetween the ages of 7 and 16 years was used as an experimental groupand another sample of 15 hearing children of similar age and academiclevel as a control group. Two experiments were carried out to study thepossible interactions between phonological and visual codes and work-ing memory, and to understand the relationships between these codesand reading and orthographic achievement. The results highlight the re-lationship between dactylic and orthographic coding. Just as phoneme-to-grapheme knowledge can facilitate reading for hearing children,fingerspelling-to-grapheme knowledge has the potential to play a similarrole for deaf readers.

JESÚS M. ALVARADO, ANÍBAL

PUENTE, AND VALERIA HERRERA

ALVARADO IS A PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY,DEPARTMENT OF METHODOLOGY OF THE

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, FACULTY OF

PSYCHOLOGY, COMPLUTENSE UNIVERSITY OF

MADRID, SPAIN. PUENTE IS A PROFESSOR OF

PSYCHOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF COGNITIVE

PROCESSES, FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY,COMPLUTENSE UNIVERSITY OF MADRID.ALVARADO AND PUENTE ARE ALSO BOTH

RESEARCHERS WITH THE INSTITUTE FOR

BIOFUNCTIONAL STUDIES, COMPLUTENSE

UNIVERSITY OF MADRID. HERRERA IS AN

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION,METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

EDUCATION, SANTIAGO, CHILE.

D

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 467

controller, the central executive, aphonological loop, and a visuo-spatialsketch pad (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974).The phonological loop can store lin-guistic information, while the sketchpad stores and manipulates visuo-spa-tial images. WM is not, therefore, ex-clusively phonological; it coexists withother codes that are independent ofspeech coding. With respect to finger-spelling (wherein each alphabetic let-ter is manually represented by a single,discrete handshape), the visuo-spatialsketch pad could play an especially im-portant role for the signing deaf.

There are important differencesbetween visual and auditory memory(Wilson & Emmorey, 1997). Auditorymemory is superior at preserving se-quential information, while visualmemory is better for simultaneous in-formation. An additional difference isthat the capacity of WM is very limitedand varies substantially across indi-viduals, although the exact capacityof visual memory remains a matter ofdebate, ranging from 1.5 to 5.0 ob-jects, whereas the phonological mem-ory span fluctuates between 5.0 and9.0 (Brockmole, Wang, & Irwin, 2002;Cowan, 2001; D. A. Miller, 1956; Vogel& Machizawa, 2004).

Wallace and Corballis (1973) exam-ined the WM performance of threegroups of study participants: deaf in-dividuals taught with oral speech, deafindividuals taught with sign language,and hearing individuals. Their resultsdemonstrate that orally trained deafpeople use both phonological anddactylic codes in WM tasks. On theother hand, deaf individuals taughtwith sign language made exclusive orpreferential use of visual and dactyliccodes. Other recent studies have con-firmed that the signing deaf whosephonological capacity is limited resortto other types of memory coding. Theresults regarding the role of phono-logical codes in reading in deaf popu-

lations are controversial. Some findevidence for the use of speech-basedcoding (Conrad, 1979; Leybaert &Alegria, 1993; Lichtenstein, 1998; Per-fetti & Sandak, 2000), while othersfind evidence of manually based cod-ing (Bellugi, Klima, & Siple, 1975;Grushkin, 1998; Hanson, 1989, 1991;Klima & Bellugi, 1979; Padden & Han-son, 2000; Padden & Ramsey, 1998;Waters & Doehring, 1990).

Treiman and Hirsh-Pasek (1983a)suggested that, given the parallels be-tween fingerspelling and orthography,the deaf could make use of dactylicrepresentations in reading tasks. Fin-gerspelling is part of signers’ naturallexicon, and it has a direct relationshipto the printed Latin alphabet. There-fore, it could act as a tool for deaf sign-ers to convert printed words intodactylic code as they read. The one-to-one correspondence between lettersand handshapes makes fingerspellingthe simplest method for transferringprinted words into dactylic code. Thiscorrespondence is even more con-sistent than the correspondence be-tween letters and sounds used byhearing people.

In recent years, sign language andreading have again become objects ofinvestigation, with important contribu-tions having been made in the specificfields of reading acquisition and Amer-ican Sign Language (ASL; Chamberlain& Mayberry, 2000; Hoffmeister, Philip,Costello, & Grass, 1997; Padden &Ramsey, 1998; Strong & Prinz, 1997).All these studies have concluded thatsign language skills are significantlycorrelated with reading skills; more-over, Moores (1970) observed that fin-gerspelling enables deaf children tointeract symbolically with their parentsand classmates, while Padden andRamsey (1998) have observed the rele-vance of fingerspelling to native sign-ers’ ability to read. They propose thatfingerspelling is a mediating tool that

provides a platform for the develop-ment of rudimentary phonologicalcoding. Fingerspelling interacts withspeechreading and mouthing, reflect-ing awareness of sound segments.Padden and Ramsey (2000) state thatalternatives such as visual and signcoding can be used by deaf readers,and Grushkin (1998, p. 186) goes so faras to argue that “phonological strate-gies are the least efficient strategiesavailable to readers who are deaf.” Inthe same line of thought, Izzo (2002)found that students’ reading abilitywas not significantly correlated withphonemic awareness, but that it wassignificantly correlated with languageability. Izzo’s results also confirmedthat phonemic awareness did not sig-nificantly contribute to any variance inthe reading ability of students. Giventhese results, Izzo proposed that

phonemic awareness may not play avital role in the reading develop-ment of students who are deaf . . .awareness may neither facilitate norbe necessary for the reading devel-opment of readers who are deaf, call-ing into question its necessary butnot sufficient status, suggesting thatother strategies may be equally, ifnot more, effective for some read-ers. (p. 206)

Haptonstall -Nykaza and Schick(2007) have shown that students arebetter able to recognize and writeprinted English words and to finger-spell those words when their trainingincorporates a more lexicalized style offingerspelling. They conclude that fin-gerspelling can serve as a visual phono-logical bridge, as an aid in decodingEnglish. We obtained similar resultswith a sample of young deaf individualswhose first language was Chilean SignLanguage (LSCh). Age group (childrenversus adolescents) was found to bean important moderating variable that


468

VISUAL AND PHONOLOGICAL CODING AND ORTHOGRAPHIC SKILLS

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 468

explained a large part of dactylic abilityand sign language command. In thatstudy (Puente, Alvarado, & Herrera,2006), whose sample was made up ofnative signers, we also observed thatskill in LSCh, and therefore its use, wasmuch greater in adolescents than inchildren.

Given that the deaf incorporate anduse a greater amount of dactylic codein their communication as their com-mand of sign language increases, signlanguage could be considered an im-portant moderating variable that, as itpromotes the use of dactylic code, fa-cilitates the learning of orthographiccodes and, consequently, reading. Nev-ertheless, Spanish differs from Englishin certain aspects that should be keptin mind: Spanish is formed by 29graphemes (2 of which are digraphic)and 24 phonemes classified in abstractcategories. The correspondence be-tween graphemes and phonemes israrely inconsistent, but the phoneme-grapheme correspondence is more ir-regular. The former correspondencemeans that Spanish is a very transpar-ent language for reading, while thelatter indicates that it is less transpar-ent for writing. The orthographicdifficulties in Spanish come fromthree sources: (a) digraphics (such asll and rr), (b) phonemes that are rep-resented by two or more graphemes(/b/ as b, v, and w), and (c) graphemesthat can represent two differentphonemes. The hearing reader, whohas already mastered spoken Spanish,must master the correspondence be-tween 29 graphemes and 24 categoriesof phonemes, along with all of the in-consistencies, a process that can raiseobstacles for some children. Theoreti-cally, a deaf child could bypass thephoneme-grapheme complexity by us-ing the one-to-one relationship be-tween print and fingerspelling. This isthe case in Spain, where deaf studentsuse 29 dactylic codes to represent the

29 graphemes. In Latin American coun-tries, the situation changes dependingon dialect.

The aim of the present investiga-tion was to examine the influence ofsign language and dactylic and phono-logical code use on deaf students’ability to remember and recall words,and to understand the role sign lan-guage and dactylic and phonologicalcode play in deaf students’ readingdevelopment. We first constructed atest that allowed us to identify level ofsign language command and then car-ried out two experiments with a sam-ple of Chilean deaf children. In thefirst experiment, we investigated theinfluence of dactylic and phonologi-cal codes on deaf and hearing partic-ipants in a letter recall task. In thesecond, we evaluated the roles ofvisual, dactylic, orthographic, andphonological codes in the recognitionof graphemes included in signedwords. Specifically, our aims were (a)to ascertain whether novice deaf sign-ers, skilled deaf signers, and hearingindividuals use different coding strate-gies in WM, and to study the effect ofsimilarities within stimuli on memoryrecall, and (b) to study the relation-ship between different coding strate-gies and reading skills in Chilean deafsigners.

LSCh TestAs no established test exists to meas-ure command of Chilean Sign Lan-guage, and in order to maintain thecompleteness and rigor of the presentstudy, an ad hoc test was designed.The design of this test was overseen byexperts and educators skilled in LSCh.

Like most sign languages, LSCh hassome basic, common units that makeup the formational parameters of itssigns (shape, location, orientation, andfacial or corporal expression). That isto say, every sign has a concrete hand-shape, a definite location in space, a

specific movement, a three-dimen-sional orientation of the palm of thehand, and several nonmanual compo-nents. Thus, a combination of signsforms a sentence, and a change in onlyone of these parameters can give riseto a change in overall meaning.

Construction of the LSCh Test

In order to assure the high content va-lidity of the LSCh test, it was necessarythat the signs chosen be representativeof and relevant to common language.Two criteria were used in the selectionof words for the test:

1. Frequency of use. Signs werechosen from among those mostcommon in daily LSCh. A pre-liminary sample was composedof 85 signs.

2. Distinction and simplicity. It wasrequired that the signs be simple,that is, that they be formed witha single movement of the hand,and that they be clearly differentfrom one another.

A preliminary list of 85 signs wasgiven to eight deaf judges fluent inLSCh. They then determined the ap-propriateness of each based on thecriteria, eliminating 35 signs and ap-proving a final list of 50.

The definitive version of the LSChtest consists of a book with 50 imagesrepresenting the 50 selected signs (seeFigure 1 for examples) and an answersheet on which the examiner recordseach study participant’s personal infor-mation, as well as his or her responsesto the 50 stimuli, in two columns: a firstcolumn to record the quality of partici-pants’ responses (correct or incorrect)and a second in which to note any fur-ther observations by the examiner.

Evaluation of the LSCh Test

To test scale dimensionality, an ex-ploratory factor analysis with a principal


469

On

e

Hu


ty

Y

ea

rs160

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM 69

component method was applied tothe 50 items of LSCh data. The factoranalysis identified a first factor ac-counting for 27% of the variance andmultiple residual factors that could beinterpreted as an indication of essen-tial unidimensionality: LSCh ability.Consequently, the LSCh test showed agood reliability level, .85 (Cronbach’salpha).

To evaluate external validity, wetested theoretical prediction as thenecessary increase in sign languagecommand with age and academiclevel. Figure 2 shows the scores of the28 participants in the LSCh test, sepa-

rated by age and academic grade level.One can observe that LSCh commandwas greater among participants of ahigher age and academic level. There-fore, it can be concluded that sign lan-guage command improves as a child’sintellectual ability matures. That is, asthe child matures, his or her lexiconand use of formational parametersalso develop.

The LSCh test was used to separatethe deaf participants into two groups,based on their scores. Those whosescores were above the 50th percentileformed the skilled signers group(+LSCh), and those with scores below

the 50th percentile formed the novicesigners group (-LSCh). Two experi-ments were then carried out.

MethodParticipants

The present study was done in Santi-ago de Chile, at the Jorge Otte Gablerpublic school for the deaf, which for 10years has been developing a bilingualeducative model (sign language andoral language) with its students. Theschool serves a deaf population ofmore than 120 students between theages of 2 and 18 years, the majorityfrom lower-middle-class families. Theschool’s teachers and teacher’s aidesare either deaf or hearing and fluent inLSCh.

Tests were administered to a selec-tion of students who met five strictlyapplied requirements:

1. a hearing loss of at least 80 dB orgreater in the better ear

2. a lack of other disabilities (chil-dren with disabilities other thanhearing loss were excluded)

3. use of LSCh as a first language4. a fingerspelling knowledge of

the names of the letters of theprinted alphabet

5. a knowledge of the relationshipbetween each printed letterand its dactylic representation(the students’ teachers wereconsulted in this regard)

A sample of 28 deaf students be-tween the ages of 7 and 16 years wastaken (13 boys and 15 girls; mean age= 11.43 years, SD = 2.71). Averagehearing level in the best ear, at fre-quencies of 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz,was greater than 92.5 dB.

Procedure

The LSCh test was administered to thestudy participants individually, in the


470


Figure 1

Examples of Signs Used in the LSCh (Chilean Sign Language) Test

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 470

Jorge Otte Gabler school itself but in a different room from the students’usual classrooms. The examinationtook about 20 minutes. Students par-ticipated in the test voluntarily, withparental authorization having beenpreviously confirmed with a writtenauthorization form.

During the test, the 50 images rep-resenting the previously selected signswere shown one by one. The partici-pant was to look at the image and thenarticulate its corresponding sign. Re-sponses were marked on the responsesheet along with any other observa-tions relevant to the test, such as theuse of synonyms, compound signs, ordescriptions of the image that woulddemonstrate the individual’s level ofsigned vocabulary.

Experiment 1: Visual andPhonological Coding in a WM TaskThe goal of the first experiment was tounderstand the interactions that occur

in the WM in a task that requires theuse of different types of coding, in or-der to study which coding methodsare used in the codification of wordsby both the hearing and the deaf. Wewere especially interested in examin-ing the study participants’ ability torecall sequences of phonetically andvisually similar consonants as com-pared to their ability to recall se-quences of dissimilar letters (controlsequences). We were also interested inlearning whether any different effectsexisted between the three groups(hearing children, deaf novice signers,and deaf skilled signers).

Participants

In addition to the 28 children whohad taken part in the development ofthe LSCh test, Experiment 1 includedan additional group of hearing partic-ipants. This made for a final sampleof 43 individuals between the ages of 6 and 16 years, divided into threegroups:

1. 15 hearing children (averageage = 10.60 years, SD = 3.02,students in the 2nd through 8thgrades)

2. 13 deaf novice signers (-LSCh;average age = 9.38 years, SD =2.06, students in the 2ndthrough 5th grades)

3. 15 deaf skilled signers (+LSCh;average age = 13.19 years, SD =1.82, students in the 3rd through8th grades)

The hearing group was selected froma public school, with careful attentionpaid to choosing students whose levelof academic performance was averagefor their age group.

Stimuli

The stimuli used in Experiment 1were the letters of the Spanish alpha-bet. Three sets of four letters eachwere constructed, with each set differ-ing from the others in two aspects(phonological and dactylic). The first


471

On

e

Hu


ty

Y

ea

rs160

Figure 2

Average Score and Standard Deviation in the LSCh (Chilean Sign Language) Test by Age Group (Left Side) and Academic Grade (Right Side)

AdolescentsChildren

LSC

h st

anda

rized

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

8º7º6º5º3º2ºLS

Ch

stan

dariz

ed

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 471

set was composed of four phonologi-cally similar consonants (B-C-P-V),the second of four letters that aredactylically similar in the Chileandactylic alphabet (M-N-A-T), and thethird of four letters with neitherphonological nor dactylic similarities(F-G-R-L). This last set of letters servedas a control set. The selection and clas-sification of letters was done accord-ing to the criteria established bySpanish-speaking linguists and LSChspecialists.

Procedure

The letters of each set were presentedto the study participants in writtenform on a computer screen, individu-ally and sequentially for 1 second each,such that the total time allotted per let-ter was 2 seconds (1 second with theletter visible on the screen, 1 second ofblank screen). Once each letter hadbeen presented individually, the com-plete series of four letters appearedand remained on the screen for 5 sec-onds. The instructions for this taskwere given in LSCh to the deaf partici-pants and in writing to the hearingparticipants:

In each test you will see four letters,one after the other. You should ob-serve each of the four letters carefully,and when the word WRITE appears,you must type the letters in the sameorder that they appeared on thescreen. Try as hard as possible not tochange the order of the letters, andtry to write all the letters that you canremember in 5 seconds.

At the end of the 5 seconds, a new testwas run with a new, randomly se-lected set of letters. Responses wererecorded on the computer. Before theexperiment was begun, two practiceruns were performed with letters thatdid not appear in the actual test.

Results

The average rate of incorrect re-sponses for hearing and deaf studyparticipants (both the +LSCh and–LSCh participants) in this serial or-der recall test was calculated. We ob-served that the average number ofincorrect responses in the recall ofthese letter sequences was 1.42 se-quences for hearing participants, 2.02for +LSCh deaf participants, and 2.97for –LSCh deaf participants. In termsof the three sets of letters used, thehighest average number of mistakeswas observed with the set of phono-logically similar letters (2.58 on aver-age), followed by the control set (2.16on average) and the set of dactylicallysimilar (visually similar) letters (1.56on average). The complete set of dataobtained is detailed in Table 1.

A repeated-measures analysis ofvariance was performed in order tounderstand the significance of thedifferences observed in the averagenumber of incorrect responses in the serial-order recall test in terms ofsubject group (hearing, +LSCh, and–LSCh) and in terms of the similarityof the letter sets (phonological similar-ity, visuo-dactylic similarity, and con-trol set).

The ANOVA revealed the existenceof statistically significant differencesboth between subject groups (F2, 40 =7.83, p < .01) and between letter sets

(F2, 80 = 16.66, p < .01). The level ofinteraction between the two variables(subject group and letter set) was nothigh enough to be considered statisti-cally significant (F4, 80 = 2.01, ns). TheBonferroni test for post hoc analysisproduced several findings:

1. A statistically significant differ-ence was found between thedeaf novice signers (–LSCh)and the hearing children (�d =–1.55, p < .01), and a nearly sig-nificant difference between thetwo groups of deaf participants(�d= –0.95, p = .06).

2. In terms of the similarity of theletter sets, the differences ob-served were statistically signifi-cant: between the control setand the phonologically similarset (�d= –0.43, p < .05), be-tween the control set and thedactylically similar set (�d=0.61, p < .01), and between thephonologically and dactylicallysimilar sets (�d= –1.04, p < .01).The negative differences be-tween the phonologically anddactylically similar sets and be-tween the phonologically simi-lar and control sets can beinterpreted as a reflection ofthe interference of phonologi-cal coding on WM, while thepositive difference between the


472


Table 1

Experiment 1: Average Number of Incorrect Responses in Serial Order Recall Test

Type of letter similarity

Phonological Visual Control

M SD M SD M SD

Hearing 1.67 1.40 1.27 1.49 1.33 1.63

+LSCh 2.53 1.25 1.33 1.18 2.20 1.32

–LSCh 3.69 0.48 2.15 0.90 3.08 1.04

Total 2.58 1.38 1.56 1.26 2.16 1.51

Note. LSCh, Chilean Sign Language.

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 472

control set and the dactylicallysimilar set can be interpreted asevidence of dactylic coding’snature as an aid to WM. Accord-ing to Cowan (2001), the visualWM can store approximatelyfour elements, precisely thenumber of letters used in Ex-periment 1.

Discussion

The results show that, on the onehand, there are differences in mem-ory, but only between the hearing in-dividuals and novice signers, and, onthe other hand, that there seems tobe an interference in serial order re-call when the letters in the sequenceare phonologically similar, whereas avisuo-spatial similarity (or dactyliccode similarity) seems to facilitatememory. What is more, the patternsof interference and facilitation areindependent of whether the partici-pants were hearing or deaf, as evi-denced by the fact that no interactionwas observed between these vari-ables. Similar results in experimentsinvolving deaf signers who used ASLwere found by Hanson, Liberman,and Shankweiler (1984). The differ-ences between the reading levels ofhearing and deaf individuals could,then, be explained in terms of visualWM capacity. If deaf students usemore visual strategies than hearingstudents for coding words, and if vi-sual WM storage capacity is very lim-ited, then the deaf students’ readingperformance should be worse. Aspeople who are profoundly deaf havevery limited access to phonology,they must use and develop alterna-tive visual storage mechanisms. Wilsonand Emmorey (1997) indicate that inthe case of sign language users, WMinvolves visual or quasi-visual repre-sentations, which suggests parallels tothe visuo-spatial WM.

Experiment 2:Coding Strategies in the Recognition of Signed WordsIn Experiment 2, we studied the rela-tionship between different codingstrategies and the recognition ofgraphemes in signed words and read-ing skills. For this task, study parti-cipants were asked to determinewhether each of the different repre-sentations of words they saw was re-lated or not to the written form of thewords presented. Based on their re-sponses, it is possible to determine thecharacteristics of the representationsaccording to the codes that the signingdeaf employ. We also tried to establisha hierarchy of code use. If LSCh skillswere of a more visual nature, then itcould be expected that those deafreaders most skilled in LSCh woulddemonstrate a preference for the useof codes and metalinguistic skills basedprincipally on their visual experienceswith language.

Participants

The participants consisted of the 28deaf students who passed the LSChtest, divided into two groups accord-ing to their level of sign languagecommand (+LSCh and –LSCh).

Procedure

For Experiment 2, we made a bookwith 15 images of simple and high-fre-quency signs representing the follow-ing concepts: mom, teacher, table, car,

flowers, milk, doctor, ball, cat, chair,

television, tree, girl, house, and dad.We made sure that all the pictures usedin the task represented signs known to the study participants. The taskconsisted of observing the sign, thenarticulating the sign, and, finally, an-swering questions related to threeexperimental set conditions: speech-reading, dactylic (handshapes), and

orthographic (printed graphemes).The 15 images were presented in allthree experimental set conditions,such that each participant respondedto 45 questions. The instructions forthis task were given in LSCh: “Observethe image carefully, make the sign, andthen say whether the indicated letterforms part of the signed word.”

To confirm that the study partici-pants understood the instructions, wedid several trial runs before beginningthe test. For example, a participant waspresented with the image milk, thenrecognized and articulated its sign. Hewas then asked to look at the exam-iner’s lips, and the examiner silentlyformed the phoneme “L.” The exam-iner then asked the participant if theword milk was spelled with the letter“L” (speechreading condition set), andfinally the participant’s response wasrecorded. The task continued withthe presentation of the same image,in this case milk, and the participantwas asked to respond to questions us-ing the dactylic or orthographic con-dition sets. Each set of experimentalconditions is described below.

1. Speechreading. Once the studyparticipant has recognized theimage and articulated its corre-sponding sign, he or she is askedto watch the experimenter’s lipsas the experimenter silentlyforms a phoneme. The partici-pant’s task consists of decidingwhether that phoneme is pres-ent in the written form of theword presented as a sign. For ex-ample, for the sign for the wordcastle, the phoneme “P” is notpart of the word, and the correctresponse would be NO. Oncethe response (YES or NO) hasbeen given and recorded, thenext question is given using thedactylic condition set.


473

On

e

Hu


ty

Y

ea

rs160

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 473

2. Dactylic. Using the same stimu-lus as in the previous conditionset, the experimenter presentsthe study participant with the im-age of a handshape (finger-spelling) corresponding to aletter of the alphabet. The partic-ipant’s task is to decide whetherthat dactylic code is present inthe written form of the word pre-sented in fingerspelling. To con-tinue with the above example, animage of the handshape for theletter “S” is shown to the partici-pant, who must decide whetherthis letter appears in the wordcastle. Once the response hasbeen recorded, the next ques-tion is given, using the ortho-graphic condition set.

3. Orthographic. Using the samestimulus as in the previous con-ditions set, the experimenterpresents the study participantwith an image of a printed letterand asks him to decide whetherthis letter is present in the writ-ten form of the word presented.To continue with the above ex-ample, the participant is showna printed letter “F” and asked todecide whether this letter ap-pears in the word castle.

In addition to these three conditionssets, we also evaluated the study par-ticipants’ residual access capacity forphonological codes. For this evalua-tion, the experimenter made the soundof a specific phoneme while coveringher mouth (in order to eliminatevisual cues). The participant’s taskconsisted of deciding whether thephoneme he or she heard appearedin the word. For example, for the signfor castle, the experimenter made thesound “T,” and the participant wasasked whether or not this phonemeappears in the word.

Results

The average number of correct re-sponses in the speechreading, dactylic,and orthographic code sets for the twogroups of deaf participants (+LSChand –LSCh) was calculated. It was ob-served that the +LSCh participantsmanaged the different types of codeseasily, obtaining correct responserates of over 80% with speechreading,dactylic codes, and orthographiccodes. The novice signers group(–LSCh), on the other hand, while ob-taining correct response rates of over58% with dactylic and orthographiccodes, responded correctly only 37%of the time when stimuli were pre-sented with speechreading, a type ofcoding that provides elements neces-sary for the segmental analysis ofwords (see Figure 3).

We then performed a repeated-measures ANOVA in order to evaluatethe statistical significance of the dif-ferences observed between the twogroups of deaf participants (+LSChand –LSCh) in their use of the differ-ent codes (speechreading, dactyliccodes, and orthographic codes). Theanalysis revealed that the differencesobserved were statistically significant,both between subject groups (F1, 26= 31.63, p < .01) and between codesets (F2, 52 = 8.25, p < .01), and thatthe interaction between the two vari-ables, subject group and code set, wasalso statistically significant (F2, 52 =3.59, p < .05). Therefore, the better-skilled signers used more codes (13.0on average) than the novice signersdid (7.9 on average). What is more,we observed an overall lesser use of


474


Figure 3

Average Number of Correct Responses on Three Tasks, by Group (+LSCh, Dark Gray;–LSCh, Light Gray)

OrthographicDactylicSpeechreading

Ave

rage

Sco

res

15

12

9

6

3

0

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 474

speechreading strategies (9.0 on aver-age) than of dactylic strategies (11.3on average) or orthographic strategies(11.0 on average), a difference that, asFigure 3 shows, is much more pro-nounced among novice signers and re-sults in the interaction between thetwo variables.

We then evaluated the study partici-pants’ capacity to access phonologicalcodes directly by making use of anyresidual auditory capacity they mayhave possessed. Given that the samplein this experiment was composed ofprofoundly deaf individuals, our ob-servations coincided with our expec-tations that their capacity to accessphonological coding directly would bequite limited: The average number ofcorrect responses to the 15 stimulipresented was 0.77 for novice sign-

ers (–LSCh) and 1.00 for skilled sign-ers (+LSCh). A new ANOVA showedthat this difference between the twogroups of deaf participants was not sig-nificant (F1, 26 = 0.08, ns), but that thetwo groups’ average scores, despite be-ing so low, were significantly higherthan zero (F1, 26 = 4.79, p < .05).

Correlation and

Regression Analyses

We did correlations and multiple lin-ear-regression analyses in order to un-derstand how the previously examinedvariables were related to reading abil-ity. We defined four reading levels ac-cording to study participants’ generalacademic performance and to the re-ports of the experts and teachers whocollaborated in the selection of thesample of 28 profoundly deaf signers

free of any other disabilities, cognitiveor physical. Findings from these analy-ses are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that the major prob-lem in estimating reading ability is thepotential contamination of results byage. In order to avoid this type of con-tamination, partial correlations werecalculated controlling for age (seeTable 3).

As Table 3 shows, the factors moststrongly correlated to reading levelwere dactylic ability and perform-ance on the LSCh test. The strongcorrelations between orthographicand dactylic abilities illustrate therelevant role of sign language in thedevelopment of reading skills. Addi-tionally, the nexus of orthographicand dactylic abilities can be explainedby a common memory code. (It should


475

On

e

Hu


ty

Y

ea

rs160

Academic Age range Orthographic Dactylic Speechreading Phonological

grade (years) LSCh test coding task coding task coding task coding task

1. Very low 2nd 7–9 –1.50 –1.45 –1.63 –1.49 –0.43

2. Low 3rd 8–10 –0.47 –0.57 –0.38 –1.11 0.37

3. Medium 5th–6th 11–15 0.34 0.48 0.51 0.55 –0.33

4. High 7th–8th 12–16 0.98 0.84 0.75 0.37 0.46

Note. LSCh, Chilean Sign Language.

Table 2

Reading Levels and Mean Standardized Scores on the LSCh Test and the Coding Tasks

Reading Phonological Speechreading Orthographic Dactylic LSCh Phonological Visual Control

level task task task task test similarity similarity similarity

Reading level — .26 .28 .45* .51** .55** –.04 .15 .05

Phonological task — .24 .26 .03 .23 –.27 .16 –.11

Speechreading task — .30 .23 .05 –.03 .22 –.02

Orthographic task — .65** .45* .19 .39* .28

Dactylic task — .61** .19 .44* .21

LSCh test — –.02 .25 –.19

Phonological similarity — .06 .40*

Visual similarity — .40*

Control similarity —

Note. LSCh, Chilean Sign Language.**p < .01. *p < .05.

Table 3

Partial Correlations Between Reading Level, LSCh Command, and the Variables Measured in Experiment 1 (Phonological, Visual,and Control Similarity) and Experiment 2 (Phonological, Speechreading, Orthographic, and Dactylic Tasks), Controlled for Age

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 475

be noted that, as shown in Table 3, thecorrelation between the orthographictask and visual memory coding issimilar to the correlation betweenthe dactylic task and visual memorycoding.)

A multiple regression analysis ofreading level was performed. Age,LSCh command (as measured by theLSCh test), and performance level in the three condition sets were cho-sen as possible explanatory variables.The results show that the significantexplanatory variables for reading levelare age and LSCh command (seeTable 4).

The small sample used in the pres-ent study could affect the power ofeffect size, although this problem isless relevant when the effect size, atthe population level, is large (Cohen,1988). Because of this, the unusuallyhigh value obtained in the presentstudy (R2 = .84) makes it possible toaffirm that a substantial portion of thevariance on reading level is accountedfor by age and LSCh command. Thelevels for tolerance (T = .36) and thevariance inflation factor (VIF = 2.82)showed that a relationship betweenage and LSCh command does exist,but that this relation does not repre-sent a problem of colinearity becausethe tolerance was greater than .10 andthe VIF was less than 10.00

Discussion

Our results are consistent with thesupposition that deaf individuals havesuperior skills with some visual pro-cessing tasks and that they use ortho-graphic coding strategies for reading.Investigating the spelling errors ofyoung deaf children whose primarylanguage was ASL, Padden (1993) con-cluded that these children attemptedto reproduce the overall shape of aword, tending to confuse letters of thesame height (e.g., t, d, and b) andthose with descenders (e.g., p, q, and

g), and to be sensitive to double letters(as in green or gutter). These youngdeaf spellers only produced letter se-quences that are possible within theEnglish spelling system, suggestingsensitivity to orthographic informa-tion (Quinn, 1981). The sensitivity ofthe deaf to the features of printedwords is confirmed in the presentstudy, in which a moderate but signifi-cant correlation between reading andorthography was found. Still more in-teresting is the strong correlationfound in the study between dactylicand orthographic coding, a result thatreinforces Musselman’s conclusion(2000) that sign language and finger-spelling are the obvious candidates forthe codification of writing in the deaf.

Parasnis and Whitaker (1992) com-pared the effects of phonological andorthographic similarity on verbal pro-cessing. They selected only deaf stu-dents who were fluent signers. Thestudy participants were asked to judgewhether the two words in a pairrhymed. Word pairs were constructedto be either phonologically or ortho-graphically similar. Overall, the deafsigners scored better on the ortho-graphic tasks than on the phonologicaltasks. Parasnis and Whitaker conse-quently suggested that fluent deafsigners primarily use an orthographicstrategy. Despite all this evidence, how-ever, some specialists maintain that or-thographic coding is less effective thana code based on phonology. Neverthe-less, in Table 3 it can be seen that the

correlation between the orthographictask and reading ability is greater thanthe correlation between the phonolog-ical task and reading ability. Addition-ally, the interference of phonologicalcodes in WM is related to phonologicalaccess (see the correlation betweenphonological similarity and the phono-logical task). These results support thethesis that phonological strategies areless efficient than visual strategies forprofoundly deaf readers (Grushkin,1998; Izzo, 2002; P. Miller, 2005; Mussel-man, 2000).

General DiscussionThe main goal of the present study wasto help clarify the controversy regard-ing the role of sign language and fin-gerspelling skills in teaching deafstudents to read. Experiment 1 re-vealed patterns of interference in thetask involving phonologically similarsets of letters for both deaf and hearingstudy participants, a finding thatdemonstrates the relevance of phono-logical coding in the processing ofwords. Nevertheless, Experiment 2 re-veals the strong relationship that existsbetween fingerspelling developmentand orthographic development, aswell as the relevance of sign languageto reading development. We can there-fore conclude that both phonologicaland visual codes are activated in thereading process, and that the latter be-come more relevant as readers’ audi-tory difficulties increase.

The relationship between phonol-


476


Model R2 B SE (B) � t Tolerance VIF

.84

(Constant) –2.67 .54 –4.92**

Age 0.21 .50 .55** 4.32** .36 2.82

LSCh test 0.07 .02 .42** 3.32** .36 2.82

Note. VIF, variance inflation factor. LSCh, Chilean Sign Language.**p < .01.

Table 4

Multiple Regression Model for Reading Level

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 476

ogy and reading seems unquestionablein hearing. Nevertheless, in the case ofthe profoundly deaf, whose access tophonology can only be indirect (Con-rad, 1979; J. Locke & V. Locke, 1971;Treiman & Hirsh-Pasek, 1983b), otheralternatives of a visual nature play acritical role in the development ofreading skills. Dodd (1980) hypothe-sizes that phonological development isnot specific to auditory information,but rather can be derived from visualinformation and other kinetic cues(such as speechreading). A problemwith speechreading does, however,exist: A large number of phonemescannot be seen in lip movements, andspeechreading is, therefore, an am-biguous code (Leybaert & Alegria,1995). In this sense, Cued Speech andfingerspelling are unambiguous whenit comes to establishing equivalencyrules between visual (manual) infor-mation and printed (written) infor-mation. It should be observed thatCued Speech and fingerspelling relyon visual information to make phonol-ogy “visible.”

In spite of the limitations, deafpeople show a consistent preferencefor visual strategies in memory (Fla-herty, 2000; Frumkin & Anisfeld,1977; J. Locke & V. Locke, 1971; Wal-lace & Corballis, 1973). Indeed, deafstudy participants have been foundto outscore their hearing counter-parts on a number of visual memorytests (Bellugi et al., 1990; Daneman,Nemeth, Stainton, & Huelsmann,1995). O’Connor and Hermelin (1973)reported that deaf study participantsremembered faces better than hear-ing participants did. When deaf andhearing Chinese children were pre-sented with pseudo-Chinese charac-ters by means of movement patternsin space, the deaf children were signif-icantly better than their hearing coun-terparts at remembering, analyzing,and decoding the movement patterns

into discrete components (Fok, vanHoek, Klima, & Bellugi, 1991). It wasreported that the hearing childrenfound the task very difficult, while thedeaf children appeared to find it sim-ple. The codification process is verydifferent between deaf and hearingindividuals. The hearing codify the al-phabet using a verbally based WMand process information sequentially,while the deaf codify dactylic forms bytaking advantage of the iconic natureof signs and process information inparallel (Flaherty, 2000).

We have observed that command ofdactylic code, orthographic coding,and reading ability are strongly corre-lated with each other, and that all threecorrelate with age, increasing as ageincreases, among study participantsdemonstrating similar levels of com-mand with dactylic and orthographiccodes (Hanson, 1986; Hirsh-Pasek,1987; Ross, 1992). The similarity in thedevelopment of dactylic and ortho-graphic code could be explained bythe fact that deaf students make use ofthe handshape-grapheme correspon-dence rules they acquire as they learnto read. As they develop, deaf studentsbecome more sensitive to ortho-graphic structures and learn to seg-ment words. Fingerspelling appears tobe the nexus for the acquisition of or-thographic structures (Musselman,2000). The relationship between or-thographic and dactylic coding thusbecomes a crucial element in the codi-fication of words, given that the deafstudents’ lack of auditory capacitymakes it necessary for them to estab-lish alternative links that allow them tosubstitute the phonological contrastsof oral language. Specifically, finger-spelling would provide deaf readerswho use sign language with a tool,means, or instrument that would allowthem to see the relationships of corre-spondence between graphemes andphonemes by establishing a relation-

ship between graphemes and hand-shapes, which are more closely relatedto these readers’ visuo-spatial experi-ences with sign language.

The correlation and regressionanalyses show that the most importantskill for reading level is sign languagecommand, as measured by the LSChtest. The analyses also support and re-inforce the notion that sign languagefacilitates the acquisition of high levelsof literacy in a second language. Intheir longitudinal study, Harris andBeech (1998) found that half of theirmost highly skilled deaf readers haddeaf parents. It should be noted thatsign language and spoken language dif-fer radically at the level of morphologyand syntax. This implies that, in thecase of sign languages, facilitation takesplace at a rather abstract level which isby no means equivalent to the level atwhich spoken languages and theirprinted forms are related, that is to say,at the phonological level (LaSasso &Davey, 1987). Chamberlain and May-berry (2000) suggest that the relation-ship between sign language andreading is largely dependent on theearly acquisition of a natural language,which allows for timely developmentof other cognitive skills, includingmemory for verbal and nonverbal ma-terial. Conrad (1979) found that deafchildren with deaf parents read at alevel approximately two grades abovethe average level of a carefully con-structed control group of deaf childrenwith hearing parents (see also Hanson,Goodell, & Perfetti, 1991; Marschark,1993; Prinz & Strong, 1997). Such find-ings have led some authors to proposethat early exposure to sign languageplays a positive role in reading compre-hension because it provides the childwith a first language (in this case, signlanguage) that can facilitate the pro-cessing of some aspects of a second(in this case, oral) language. It must berecognized, however, that deaf and


477

On

e

Hu


ty

Y

ea

rs160

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 477

hearing parents of deaf children differnot only in terms of the extent of theirsigning ability but also, for example, inmore social and cultural terms, a differ-ence that can determine the academicand personal expectations these par-ents have concerning their children(Marschark, 1993).

Padden and Ramsey (2000) pro-pose the possibility that deaf childrenwith deaf parents perform better be-cause, as a group, they comprise awell-defined participant populationwith similar demographics, in contrastto the population of deaf children withhearing parents, whose backgroundsare more variable. Therefore, the useand mastery of sign language and fin-gerspelling are shown to be factorsthat can notably aid in the learning oforthographic codes and reading skills.Fingerspelling involves the develop-ment of skills that enable the deaf tosequence and segment graphemes,which undoubtedly strengthens or-thographic understanding and, to alesser degree, phonological under-standing. Strangely, fingerspelling isnot currently used to this end; deafstudents are not formally taught to usethis strategy when learning to read.Teachers of the deaf teach their stu-dents as though they were hearing,that is, they do not employ pedagogicor didactic strategies specific to theteaching of the deaf, such as strength-ening the use of fingerspelling.

Finally, investigations into the causesof poor reading achievement by thedeaf have cited numerous factors, thenormally low level of phonologicaldevelopment being one of the mostsignificant (Waters & Doehring, 1990).However, phonological developmentcannot be promoted through the useof speech-based strategies except inthe case of those deaf who have resid-ual auditory capacity, previous experi-ence with oral language, or cochlearimplants, which facilitate access to cer-

tain forms of speech. The alternativesto speech-based strategies should bevisual or manual in nature, such asspeechreading, Cued Speech, and fin-gerspelling. Like others, we defend theuse of sign language and fingerspelling(Hanson, 1986; Hirsh-Pasek, 1987; Pad-den & Ramsey, 2000; Ross, 1992), andwe propose that intentional and activepractice with visual and dactylic vocab-ulary would be a great benefit to thedeaf in the identification of the lettersthat make up words, thereby support-ing the development of their ortho-graphic skills and, consequently, theirreading skills. After all, it must be keptin mind that fingerspelling should notbe viewed—as it often is—as a systemfor supplying words to ideas, concept,and objects that “have no signs” (Pad-den, 2006). This undermines the statusof both signs and fingerspelling as richsources of vocabulary within the lan-guage in crucial aspects such as read-ing and writing. Fingerspelling is morethan the sum of its parts. It is notmerely a linear means of representingthe orthography; rather, it has takenon a rich symbolic content above andbeyond the words themselves (Aka-matsu, 1982; Moores, 1970).

AcknowledgmentsThe research for the present study wassupported by the Agencia Española deCooperación Iberoamericana, Com-plutense University of Madrid. We aregrateful to the staff and students of theJorge Otte Gabler public school forthe deaf, Santiago de Chile.

ReferencesAkamatsu, C. (1982). The acquisition of fin-

gerspelling in preschool children. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, University ofRochester, Rochester, NY.

Alegria, J. (2003). Deafness and reading. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook

of children’s literacy (pp. 459–489). Dor-drecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Workingmemory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), Recent ad-

vances in learning and motivation: Vol. 8(pp. 468–667). New York: Academic Press.

Bellugi, U., Klima, E., & Siple, P. (1975). Remem-bering in signs. Cognition, 24, 1–30.

Bellugi, U., O’Grady, L., Lillo-Martin, D., O’GradyHynes, M., Vankoek, K., & Corina, D. (1990).Enhancement of spatial cognition in deafchildren. In V. Volterra & C. J. Erting (Eds.),From gesture to language in hearing and

deaf children (pp. 278–298). Berlin, Ger-many: Springer.

Brockmole, J. R., Wang, R. F., & Irwin, D. E.(2002). Temporal integration between visualimages and visual perceptions. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: Human Percep-

tion and Performance, 28, 315–334.Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. (2000). Theoriz-

ing about the relation between AmericanSign Language and reading. In C. Chamber-lain, J. P. Morford, & R. Mayberry (Eds.), Ac-

quisition of language by eyes (pp. 221–259).London: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for

the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). NewYork: Academic Press

Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. Lon-don: Harper & Row.

Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number four inshort-term memory: A reconsideration ofmental storage capacity. Behavioural and

Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.Daneman, M., Nemeth, S., Stainton, M., &

Huelsmann, K. (1995). Working memory asa predictor of reading achievement in orallyeducated hearing-impaired children. Volta

Review, 97, 225–241.Dodd, B. (1980). The spelling abilities of pro-

foundly prelingually deaf children. In U. Frith(Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp.423–440). London: Academic Press.

Flaherty, M. (2000). Memory in the deaf: A cross-cultural study in English and Japanese. Amer-

ican Annals of the Deaf, 145 (3), 237–243.Fok, A., van Hoek, K., Klima, E., & Bellugi, U.

(1991). The interplay between visuo-spatiallanguage and visuo-spatial script. In D. S.Martin (Ed.), Advances in cognition, educa-

tion, and deafness (pp. 38–58). Washington,DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Frumkin, B., & Anisfeld, M. (1977). Semanticand surface codes in the memory of deafchildren. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 475–493.

Grushkin, D. (1998). Why shouldn’t Sam read?Toward a new paradigm for literacy and thedeaf. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Ed-

ucation, 3, 179–204.Hanson, V. L. (1986). Access to spoken language

and the acquisition of orthographic struc-ture: Evidence from deaf readers. Quarterly

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38

(A), 193–212.Hanson, V. L. (1989). Phonology and reading:

Evidence from profoundly deaf readers. In D. Shankweiler & I. Liberman (Eds.),Phonology and reading disability: Solving


478


16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 478

the reading puzzle (pp. 69–89). Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

Hanson, V. L. (1991). Phonological processingwithout sound. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shank-weiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in lit-

eracy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp.153–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hanson, V. L., Goodell, E. W., & Perfetti, C. A.(1991). Tongue-twister effects in the silentreading of hearing and deaf college stu-dents. Journal of Memory and Language,30, 319–330.

Hanson, V. L., Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D.(1984). Linguistic coding by deaf children inrelation to beginning reading success. Jour-

nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37,378–393.

Haptonstall-Nykaza, T., & Schick, B. (2007). Thetransition from fingerspelling to Englishprint: Facilitating English decoding. Journal

of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12 (2),172–183.

Harris, M., & Beech. J. (1998). Implicit phono-logical awareness and early reading develop-ment in prelingually deaf children. Journal

of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3,205–216.

Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1987). The metalinguistics offingerspelling: An alternate way to increasereading vocabulary in congenitally deaf read-ers. Reading Research Quarterly, 22 (4),455–473.

Hoffmeister, R., Philip, M., Costello, P., &Grass, W. (1997). Evaluating American SignLanguage in deaf children: ASL influenceson reading with a focus on classifiers, plurals,verbs of motion and location. In J. Mann(Ed.), Proceedings of Deaf Studies V confer-

ence (pp. 22–31). Washington, DC: GallaudetUniversity Press.

Izzo, A. (2002). Phonemic awareness and read-ing ability: An investigation with young read-ers who are deaf. American Annals of the

Deaf, 147 (4), 18–28.Klima, E., & Bellugi, U. (1979). The signs of

language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

LaSasso, C., & Davey, B. (1998). The relation-ship between lexical knowledge and readingcomprehension for prelingually, profoundlyhearing-impaired students. Volta Review,89, 211–220.

Leybaert, J., & Alegria, J. (1993). Is word process-ing involuntary in deaf children? British Jour-

nal of Development Psychology, 11, 1–29.Leybaert. J., & Alegria, J. (1995). Spelling devel-

opment in deaf and hearing children: Evi-dence for the use of morpho-phonologicalregularities in French. Reading and Writing:

An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 1–29.Lichtenstein, E. H. (1998). The relationships be-

tween reading processes and English skills

of deaf college students. Journal of Deaf

Studies and Deaf Education, 3 (2), 80–130.Locke, J., & Locke, V. (1971). Deaf children’s

phonetic, visual, and dactylic coding in agrapheme recall task. Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology, 89 (1), 142–146.Marschark, M. (1993). Psychological develop-

ment of deaf children. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Marschark, M., & Mayer, T. (1998). Mental rep-resentation and memory in deaf adults andchildren. In M. Marschark & M. D. Clark(Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deaf-

ness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Miller, D. A. (1956). The magical number seven,

plus or minus two: Some limits on our ca-pacity for processing information. Psycho-

logical Review, 63, 81–97.Miller, P. (2005). Reading comprehension and its

relation to the quality of functional hearing:Evidence from readers with different func-tional hearing abilities. American Annals of

the Deaf, 150 (3), 305–316.Moores, D. (1970). Psycholinguistics and deaf-

ness. American Annals of the Deaf, 115 (1),37–48.

Musselman, C. (2000). How do children whocan’t hear learn to read an alphabetic script?A review of the literature on reading anddeafness. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf

Education, 5 (1), 9–31.O’Connor, N., & Hermelin, B. M. (1973). The

spatial or temporal organization of short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology, 25, 335–343.Padden, C. (1993). Lessons to be learned from

the young deaf orthographer. Linguistics

and Education, 5, 71–86.Padden, C. (2006). Learning to fingerspell

twice: Young signing children’s acquisitionof fingerspelling. In B. Schick, M. Marschark,& P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Advances in the sign

language development of deaf children

(pp. 189–201). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Padden, C. A., & Hanson, V. L. (2000). Search forthe missing link: The development of skilledreading in deaf children. In K. Emmorey &H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revis-

ited: An anthology to honor Ursula Bellugi

and Edward Klima (pp. 435–447). London:Erlbaum.

Padden, C. A., & Ramsey, C. (1998). Readingability in signing deaf children. Topics in

Language Disorders, 18 (4), 30–46.Padden, C. A., & Ramsey, C. (2000). American

Sign Language and reading ability in deafchildren. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, &R. Mayberry (Eds.), Acquisition of language

by eyes (pp. 165–189). London: Erlbaum.Parasnis, I., & Whitaker, H. A. (1992, April). Do

deaf signers access phonological informa-

tion in English words? Evidence from rhyme

judgments. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Re-search Association, San Francisco.

Paul, P. V. (1998). Literacy and deafness: The de-

velopment of reading, writing, and literate

thought. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading op-

timally builds on spoken language: Implica-tions for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf

Studies and Deaf Education, 5 (1), 32–50.Prinz, P., & Strong, M. (1997). ASL proficiency

and English literacy within a bilingual deafeducation model of instruction. Topics in

Language Disorders, 18, 47–60.Puente, A., Alvarado, J., & Herrera, V. (2006).

Fingerspelling and sign language as alterna-tive codes for reading and writing words forChilean deaf signers. American Annals of

the Deaf, 151 (3), 299–310.Quinn, L. (1981). Reading skills of hearing and

congenitally deaf children. Journal of Ex-

perimental Child Psychology, 32, 139–161.Ross, D. S. (1992). Learning to read with sign

language: How beginning deaf readers re-

late sign language to written words. Un-published master’s thesis, McGill University,Montreal, Canada.

Strong, M., & Prinz, P. (1997). A study of the re-lationship between American Sign Languageand English literacy. Journal of Deaf Studies

and Deaf Education, 2 (1), 37–46.Treiman, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1983a). Silent

reading: Insights from second-generationdeaf readers. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 39–65.

Treiman, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1983b, August).The role of phonological recoding for deaf

readers. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the American Psychological Society,Anaheim, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. 236 875)

Vogel, E. K., & Machizawa, M. G. (2004, April 15).Neural activity predicts individual differencesin visual working memory capacity. Nature,

428, 748–751.Wallace, G., & Corballis, M. C. (1973). Short-term

memory and coding strategies in the deaf.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99 (3),334–348.

Waters, G., & Doehring, D. (1990). Reading ac-quisition in congenitally deaf children whocommunicate orally: Insights from an analy-sis of component reading, language, andmemory skills. In T. Carr & B. Levy (Eds.),Reading and its development: Component

skills approaches (pp. 323–373). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Wilson, M., & Emmorey, K. (1997). Workingmemory for sign language: A window intothe architecture of the working memory sys-tem. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Edu-

cation, 2 (3), 121–130.


479

On

e

Hu


ty

Y

ea

rs160

16883-AAD_152.5 3/19/08 8:45 AM Page 479

Visual and Phonological Coding in Working Memory and Orthographic Skills of Deaf Children Using...

Documents

Transcript of Visual and Phonological Coding in Working Memory and Orthographic Skills of Deaf Children Using...