ArticleScientific reports2024
Investigating the crowding effect on letters and symbols in deaf adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Comparing sentence superiority effects in deaf and hearing readers: The role of syntactic and visuo-attentional processing.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- The processing of multiple letters and multiple words in deaf adults.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading requires the transformation of a complex array of visual features into sounds and meaning. For deaf signers who experience changes in visual attention and have little or no access to the sounds of the language they read, understanding the visual constraints underlying reading is crucial. This study aims to explore a fundamental aspect of visual perception intertwined with reading: the crowding effect. This effect manifests as the struggle to distinguish a target letter when surrounded by flanker letters. Through a two-alternative forced choice task, we assessed the recognition of letters and symbols presented in isolation or flanked by two or four characters, positioned either to the left or right of fixation. Our findings reveal that while deaf individuals exhibit higher accuracy in processing letters compared to symbols, their performance falls short of that of their hearing counterparts. Interestingly, despite their proficiency with letters, deaf individuals didn't demonstrate quicker letter identification, particularly in the most challenging scenario where letters were flanked by four characters. These outcomes imply the development of a specialized letter processing system among deaf individuals, albeit one that may subtly diverge from that of their hearing counterparts.
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.