ArticleJournal of vision2026
Identifying the visual and linguistic sources of reading efficiency: A comparison of individual differences among deaf and hearing readers.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. 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
Reading is a task that engages the vision-language interface, and the efficiency of this process may be related to how much of the text readers use to process visual and/or linguistic information during a fixation (i.e., their reading span size). Compared with typically hearing readers, deaf signers both read more efficiently (i.e., faster with equivalent comprehension) and have wider reading spans, suggesting a critical role for span size in reading efficiency. Using a linear regression analysis, we assessed the effects of two different span sizes (the word identification span, within which readers extract linguistic information, and the perceptual span, within which they extract the visuospatial layout) and reading comprehension ability on reading rate for deaf signers (n = 50) and hearing non-signers (n = 109). For all readers, those with a larger word identification span read faster, but this relationship was weaker for the perceptual span, emphasizing the importance of parafoveal linguistic processing for reading speed. The effect of the word identification span was stronger for the deaf group, and only deaf signers showed a positive relationship between reading comprehension ability and reading rate (and word identification span size). These findings suggest that reading efficiency (exemplified by deaf signers) derives from an ability to extract linguistic information far from fixation in a way that supports both reading speed and comprehension.
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.