ArticleBehavior research methods2024
The Chinese lexicon of deaf readers: A database of character decisions and a comparison between deaf and hearing readers.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a psycholinguistic study investigating lexical effects on simplified Chinese character recognition by deaf readers. Prior research suggests that deaf readers exhibit efficient orthographic processing and decreased reliance on speech-based phonology in word recognition compared to hearing readers. In this large-scale character decision study (25 participants, each evaluating 2500 real characters and 2500 pseudo-characters), we analyzed various factors influencing character recognition accuracy and speed in deaf readers. Deaf participants demonstrated greater accuracy and faster recognition when characters were more frequent, were acquired earlier, had more strokes, displayed higher orthographic complexity, were more imageable in reference, or were less concrete in reference. Comparison with a previous study of hearing readers revealed that the facilitative effect of frequency on character decision accuracy was stronger for deaf readers than hearing readers. The effect of orthographic-phonological regularity differed significantly for the two groups, indicating that deaf readers rely more on orthographic structure and less on phonological information during character recognition. Notably, increased stroke counts (i.e., higher orthographic complexity) hindered hearing readers but facilitated recognition processes in deaf readers, suggesting that deaf readers excel at recognizing characters based on orthographic structure. The database generated from this large-scale character decision study offers a valuable resource for further research and practical applications in deaf education and literacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38114882What 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.