Investigating the crowding effect on letters and symbols in deaf adults.
Deaf
Letter identification
Periphery
Reading
Visual crowding
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Jul 2024
12 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
08
03
2024
accepted:
04
07
2024
medline:
13
7
2024
pubmed:
13
7
2024
entrez:
12
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38997432
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66832-1
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-66832-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16161Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Rayner, K., Balota, D. A. & Pollatsek, A. Against rarafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading*. Canad. J. Psychol. 40, 473–483 (1986).
doi: 10.1037/h0080111
pubmed: 3502884
Reichle, E. D., Liversedge, S. P., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. Encoding multiple words simultaneously in reading is implausible. Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 115–119 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.002
pubmed: 19223223
Rayner, K., Slattery, T. J. & Bélanger, N. N. Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 17, 834–839 (2010).
doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.6.834
pubmed: 21169577
pmcid: 3075059
Bouma, H. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature 226, 177–178. https://doi.org/10.1038/226177a0 (1970).
doi: 10.1038/226177a0
pubmed: 5437004
Grainger, J., Dufau, S. & Ziegler, J. C. A. Vision of reading. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.12.008 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.12.008
pubmed: 26809725
Balas, B., Nakano, L. & Rosenholtz, R. A summary-statistic representation in peripheral vision explains visual crowding. J. Vis. 9, 13–13 (2009).
doi: 10.1167/9.12.13
Strasburger, H. Seven myths on crowding and peripheral vision. i-Perception 11, 1–46 (2020).
doi: 10.1177/2041669520913052
Shechter, A., Medina, S., Share, D. L. & Yashar, A. Language-universal and script-specific factors in the recognition of letters in visual crowding: The effects of lexicality, hemifield, and transitional probabilities in a right-to-left script. Cortex 171, 319–329 (2024).
doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2023.10.021
pubmed: 38070387
Joo, S. J., White, A. L., Strodtman, D. J. & Yeatman, J. D. Optimizing text for an individual’s visual system: The contribution of visual crowding to reading difficulties. Cortex 103, 291–301 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.03.013
pubmed: 29679920
Bacigalupo, F. & Luck, S. J. The allocation of attention and working memory in visual crowding. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 27, 1180–1193 (2015).
doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00771
pubmed: 25514655
Rummens, K. & Sayim, B. Broad attention uncovers benefits of stimulus uniformity in visual crowding. Sci. Rep. 11, 23976 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03258-z
pubmed: 34907221
pmcid: 8671468
He, Y. & Legge, G. E. Linking crowding, visual span, and reading. J. Vis. 17, 1–15 (2017).
doi: 10.1167/17.11.11
Dehaene, S. & Cohen, L. Cultural recycling of cortical maps. Neuron 56, 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.004 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.10.004
pubmed: 17964253
Grainger, J., Tydgat, I. & Isselé, J. Crowding affects letters and symbols differently. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum Percept Perform 36, 673–688 (2010).
doi: 10.1037/a0016888
pubmed: 20515197
Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M. & Vinckier, F. The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 335–341 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004
pubmed: 15951224
Luckner, J. L., Sebald, A. M., Cooney, J., Young, J. & Muir, S. G. An examination of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education. Am. Ann. Deaf 150, 443–456. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2006.0008 (2005).
doi: 10.1353/aad.2006.0008
pubmed: 16610477
Bélanger, N. N., Slattery, T. J., Mayberry, R. I. & Rayner, K. Skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Psychol. Sci. 23, 816–823 (2012).
doi: 10.1177/0956797611435130
pubmed: 22683830
Bélanger, N. N., Lee, M. & Schotter, E. R. Young skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 291–301 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1324498
Stringer, C. et al. The leftward word identification span of deaf readers. Appl. Psycholinguist. 42, 601–630 (2021).
Bélanger, N. N., Baum, S. R. & Mayberry, R. I. Reading difficulties in adult deaf readers of French: Phonological codes, not guilty!. Sci. Stud. Read. 16, 263–285 (2012).
doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.568555
Zakia, R. D. & Haber, R. N. Sequential letter and word recognition in deaf and hearing subjects. Percept Psychophys. 9(1), 110–114 (1971).
doi: 10.3758/BF03213041
Padden, C. A. Lessons to be learned from the young deaf orthographer. Linguist. Educ. 5, 71–86 (1993).
doi: 10.1016/S0898-5898(05)80005-1
Perea, M., Jiménez, M., Talero, F. & López-Cañada, S. Letter-case information and the identification of brand names. Br. J. Psychol. 106, 162–173 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/bjop.12071
pubmed: 24766365
Gutierrez-Sigut, E., Vergara-Martínez, M. & Perea, M. Deaf readers benefit from lexical feedback during orthographic processing. Sci. Rep. 9, 12321 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-48702-3
pubmed: 31444497
pmcid: 6707270
Gutierrez-Sigut, E., Vergara-Martínez, M. & Perea, M. The impact of visual cues during visual word recognition in deaf readers: An ERP study. Cognition 218, 104938 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104938
pubmed: 34678681
Burden, V. & Campbell, R. The development of word-coding skills in the born deaf: An experimental study of deaf school-leavers. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 12, 331–349 (1994).
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1994.tb00638.x
Mayberry, R. I., del Giudice, A. A. & Lieberman, A. M. Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 16, 164–188 (2011).
doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq049
pubmed: 21071623
Miller, P. & Clark, D. D. Phonemic awareness is not necessary to become a skilled deaf reader. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 23, 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-011-9246-0 (2011).
doi: 10.1007/s10882-011-9246-0
Peleg, O., Ben-Hur, G. & Segal, O. Orthographic, phonological, and semantic dynamics during visual word recognition in deaf versus hearing adults. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 63, 2334–2344 (2020).
doi: 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-19-00285
pubmed: 32603647
Sehyr, Z. S. & Emmorey, K. Contribution of lexical quality and sign language variables to reading comprehension. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enac018 (2022).
doi: 10.1093/deafed/enac018
pubmed: 35775152
Sehyr, Z. S., Midgley, K. J., Emmorey, K. & Holcomb, P. J. Asymetric event-related potential priming effects between English letters and American sign language fingerspelling fonts. Neurobiol. Lang. 4, 361–381 (2023).
doi: 10.1162/nol_a_00104
Guldenoglu, B. et al. A comparison of the letter-processing skills of hearing and deaf readers: Evidence from five orthographies. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 19, 221–237 (2014).
doi: 10.1093/deafed/ent051
Perfetti, C. A. Reading acquisition and beyond: Decoding includes cognition. Am. J. Educ. 93(1), 40–60 (1984).
doi: 10.1086/443785
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2021).
Brooks, M. E. et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R J. 9, 378–400. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2017-066 (2017).
doi: 10.32614/RJ-2017-066
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Statis. Softw. 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 (2017).
doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H. & Bates, D. Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. J. Memory Lang. 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.00110.1080/17470218.2017.1324498 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.00110.1080/17470218.2017.1324498
Lenth R emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means_. R package version 1.10.0. (2024).
Baayen, R. H. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R (Cambridge University Press, 2008).
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
Traxler, C. B. The stanford achievement test, 9th edition: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 5, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/5.4.337 (2000).
doi: 10.1093/deafed/5.4.337
pubmed: 15454499
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mayberry, R. I. How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learning disabilities. Res. Pract. 16, 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00022 (2001).
doi: 10.1111/0938-8982.00022
Goldberg, H. R. & Lederberg, A. R. Acquisition of the alphabetic principle in deaf and hard-of-hearing preschoolers: The role of phonology in letter-sound learning. Read Writ. 28, 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9535-y (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s11145-014-9535-y
Guldenoglu, B. et al. A comparison of the letter-processing skills of hearing and deaf readers: Evidence from five orthographies. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 19, 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent051 (2014).
doi: 10.1093/deafed/ent051
Miller, P., Kargin, T. & Guldenoglu, B. Deaf native signers are better readers than nonnative signers: Myth or truth?. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 20, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enu044 (2014).
doi: 10.1093/deafed/enu044
Chanceaux, M. & Grainger, J. Constraints on letter-in-string identification in peripheral vision: Effects of number of flankers and deployment of attention. Front Psychol. 4, 119. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00119 (2013).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00119
pubmed: 23494610
pmcid: 3595509
Stivalet, P., Moreno, Y., Richard, J., Barraud, P. A. & Raphel, C. Differences in visual search tasks between congenitally deaf and normally hearing adults. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 6(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6410(97)00026-8 (1998).
doi: 10.1016/s0926-6410(97)00026-8
pubmed: 9479074
Pavani, F. & Bottari, D. Visual Abilities in Individuals with Profound Deafness A Critical Review. In The Neural Bases of Multisensory Processes (eds Murray, M. M. & Wallace, M. T.) (CRC Press, 2012).
Sladen, D. P., Tharpe, A. M., Ashmead, D. H., Wesley Grantham, D. & Chun, M. M. Visual attention in deaf and normal hearing adults: Effects of stimulus compatibility. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. JSLHR 48, 1529–1537. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/106) (2005).
doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/106)
pubmed: 16478388
McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychol. Rev. 88, 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375 (1981).
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375
Snell, J. & Grainger, J. Readers are parallel processors. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 537–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.006 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.04.006
pubmed: 31138515
Declerck, M., Wen, Y., Snell, J., Meade, G. & Grainger, J. Unified syntax in the bilingual mind. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 27, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01666-x (2020).
doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01666-x
pubmed: 31823298
McCann, R. S., Folk, C. L. & Johnston, J. C. The role of spatial attention in visual word processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18, 1015–1029. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1015 (1992).
doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.4.1015
pubmed: 1431741
Reicher, G. M. Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. J. Exp. Psychol. 81, 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027768 (1969).
doi: 10.1037/h0027768
pubmed: 5811803
Wheeler, D. D. Processes in word recognition. Cogn. Psychol. 1, 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(70)90005-8 (1970).
doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(70)90005-8
Bélanger, N. N. & Rayner, K. What eye movements reveal about deaf readers. Curr. Dir Psychol. Sci. 24, 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414567527 (2015).
doi: 10.1177/0963721414567527
pubmed: 26594098
pmcid: 4651440
Li, Y., Luo, M., Zhang, X. & Wang, S. Effects of exogenous and endogenous cues on attentional orienting in deaf adults. Front Psychol. 13, 1038468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1038468 (2022).
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1038468
pubmed: 36275214
pmcid: 9584612