ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022
Deafness and early language deprivation influence arithmetic performances.
Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Visual form matching supports arithmetic across visual and auditory modalities.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Stronger neural response to canonical finger-number configurations in deaf compared to hearing adults revealed by FPVS-EEG.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been consistently reported that deaf individuals experience mathematical difficulties compared to their hearing peers. However, the idea that deafness and early language deprivation might differently affect verbal (i.e., multiplication) vs. visuospatial (i.e., subtraction) arithmetic performances is still under debate. In the present paper, three groups of 21 adults (i.e., deaf signers, hearing signers, and hearing controls) were therefore asked to perform, as fast and as accurately as possible, subtraction and multiplication operations. No significant group effect was found for accuracy performances. However, reaction time results demonstrated that the deaf group performed both arithmetic operations slower than the hearing groups. This group difference was even more pronounced for multiplication problems than for subtraction problems. Weaker language-based phonological representations for retrieving multiplication facts, and sensitivity to interference are two hypotheses discussed to explain the observed dissociation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.