SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2023
Verbal and visual serial-order memory in deaf signers and hearing nonsigners: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2023. 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.
- Impacts of hearing history, etiology, vestibular and balance function, and socioeconomic marginalization on developmental outcomes in children with cochlear implants.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Moving, Seeing, Hearing, Smelling and Tasting: How Sensory-Motor Experiences Shape Early Cognitive Development.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research suggests Deaf signers may have different short-term and working memory processes compared with hearing nonsigners due to prolonged auditory deprivation. The direction and magnitude of these reported differences, however, are variable and dependent on memory modality (e.g., visual, verbal), stimulus type, and research design. These discrepancies have made consensus difficult to reach which, in turn, slows progress in areas such as education, medical decision-making, and cognitive sciences. The present systematic review and meta-analysis included 35 studies (N = 1,701 participants) that examined verbal (n = 15), visuospatial (n = 10), or both verbal and visuospatial (n = 10) serial-memory tasks comparing nonimplanted, Deaf signers to hearing nonsigners across the life span. Multivariate meta-analyses indicated a significant, negative effect of deafness on verbal short-term memory (forward recall), g = -1.33, SE = 0.17, p < .001, 95% CI [-1.68, -0.98], and working memory (backward recall), g = -0.66, SE = 0.11, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.89, -0.45], but no significant effect of deafness on visuospatial short-term memory, g = -0.055, SE = 0.17, p = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.28]. Visuospatial working memory was not analyzed due to limited power. Population estimates for verbal and visuospatial short-term memory were moderated by age wherein studies with adults demonstrated a stronger hearing advantage than studies with children/adolescents. Quality estimates indicated most studies were of fair quality, with only 38% of studies involving Deaf authors. Findings are discussed in the context of both Deaf equity and models of serial memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37012579What 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.