2022
DOI: 10.1080/15475441.2022.2047689
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Number Stroop Effects in Arabic Digits and ASL Number Signs: The Impact of Age and Setting of Language Acquisition

Abstract: Multiple studies have reported mathematics underachievement for students who are deaf, but the onset, scope, and causes of this phenomenon remain understudied. Early language deprivation might be one factor influencing the acquisition of numbers. In this study, we investigated a basic and fundamental mathematical skill, automatic magnitude processing, in two formats (Arabic digits and American Sign Language number signs) and the influence of age of first language exposure on both formats by using two versions … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 102 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, Newport (1990) found Classifier verbs of motion were difficult for Late‐L1 participants, whose childhood language was less restricted than the present ones. In ongoing work, we find that Late‐L1 participants, with backgrounds similar to the present ones, show difficulty comprehending and producing plurality in Classifier constructions (Semushina et al., in review) and typically produce one‐argument verb structures (Miles et al., 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…For example, Newport (1990) found Classifier verbs of motion were difficult for Late‐L1 participants, whose childhood language was less restricted than the present ones. In ongoing work, we find that Late‐L1 participants, with backgrounds similar to the present ones, show difficulty comprehending and producing plurality in Classifier constructions (Semushina et al., in review) and typically produce one‐argument verb structures (Miles et al., 2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 50%