ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2023
Effect of visual presentation format and recall direction on letter span and error patterns in Deaf signing and hearing adults.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deaf signers consistently show shorter memory spans than hearing nonsigners, but the scope and nature of this difference remain unclear. The present study tested whether Deaf signers are biased toward flexible use of visual aspects of linguistic items. Matched samples of adult Deaf signers (N = 33) and hearing nonsigners (N = 32) performed a letter-span task with visual serial presentation, to bias phonological processing, and a simultaneous presentation, to bias visuospatial processing. We also manipulated short-term memory by varying recall direction (forward, backward). Analyses revealed reduced spans for Deaf signers compared with hearing nonsigners, backward compared with forward recall, and sequential compared with simultaneous presentation. Item-level responses indicated that Deaf signers made more errors than hearing nonsigners across three error types. Deaf signers also showed reduced item position binding compared with hearing nonsigners, which indicates differences related to item order and sequencing in tasks with printed, linguistic stimuli. Deaf signers were the only group who demonstrated reduced omission errors when switching from sequential to simultaneous presentation, suggesting flexible processing mechanisms. No group differences were found for a secondary spatial span test, indicating the scope of group differences for ordered information was limited to verbal items. Overall, results are consistent with flexible use of different memory cues in Deaf signers. A core area for future research includes evaluating reduced activation of phonological representations of linguistic items in Deaf signers. These results amplify a novel M
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.