Semantic categorization: A comparison between deaf and hearing children

Ormel, Ellen; Gijsel, Martine; Hermans, Daan; Bosman, A.M.T.; Knoors, Harry

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.03.001

Cited by 25 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern is similar to previous research on hearing Chinese participants (Chou et al, 2009; Cao et al, 2010). Our results are also consistent with previous behavioral studies in alphabetic writing systems by showing that the deaf individuals were less accurate than hearing controls during phonological (Hanson and Fowler, 1987; Campbell and Wright, 1988; Sterne and Goswami, 2000; Aparicio et al, 2007; MacSweeney et al, 2008) and semantic processing (Green and Shepherd, 1975; MacSweeney et al, 2004; Marschark et al, 2004; Ormel et al, 2010). For both tasks, we found that CD showed less activation than HC in left inferior frontal gyrus, but greater activation in several right hemisphere regions including inferior frontal gyrus, angular gyrus, and inferior temporal gyrus.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The reduced activation in ventral inferior frontal gyrus for CD compared to HC may indicate their ineffective retrieval and selection of semantic representations. It is possible that this reduced activation is due to deaf individual's poorer lexical-semantic skills, as show in previous studies (Green and Shepherd, 1975; Marschark et al, 2004; Ormel et al, 2010). However, we did not find that the group difference in left ventral inferior frontal gyrus was larger for the meaning task compared to rhyming task, so future studies are needed to investigate the specific role of ventral inferior frontal gyrus in deaf reading.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Deaf individuals also seem to have difficulty in the semantic knowledge of written words (Ormel et al, 2010). Because deaf readers may not automatically access phonology, semantic knowledge may provide an important source of reading support (Kyle and Harris, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because deaf readers may not automatically access phonology, semantic knowledge may provide an important source of reading support (Kyle and Harris, 2006). However, most research has suggested that deaf individuals have semantic processing deficits in alphabetic writing systems (Green and Shepherd, 1975; Marschark et al, 2004; Ormel et al, 2010). For example, both hearing and deaf groups showed significant unmasked priming RT effects and N400 effects, whereas only hearing individuals showed a behavioral effect during masked priming (MacSweeney et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Brain activation during phonological and semantic processing of Chinese characters in deaf signers

Peng

Liu

et al. 2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies found altered brain function in deaf individuals reading alphabetic orthographies. However, it is not known whether similar alterations of brain function are characteristic of non-alphabetic writing systems and whether alterations are specific to certain kinds of lexical tasks. Here we examined differences in brain activation between Chinese congenitally deaf individuals (CD) and hearing controls (HC) during character reading tasks requiring phonological and semantic judgments. For both tasks, we found that CD showed less activation than HC in left inferior frontal gyrus, but greater activation in several right hemisphere regions including inferior frontal gyrus, angular gyrus, and inferior temporal gyrus. Although many group differences were similar across tasks, greater activation in right middle frontal gyrus was more pronounced for the rhyming compared to the meaning task. Finally, within the deaf individuals better performance on the rhyming task was associated with less activation in right inferior parietal lobule and angular gyrus. Our results in Chinese CD are broadly consistent with previous studies in alphabetic languages suggesting greater engagement of inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal cortex for reading that is largely independent of task, with the exception of right middle frontal gyrus for phonological processing. The brain behavior correlations potentially indicate that CD that more efficiently use the right hemisphere are better readers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Brain activation during phonological and semantic processing of Chinese characters in deaf signers

Peng

Liu

et al. 2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies with deaf populations have predominantly examined spoken English skills (in deaf adults, MacSweeney, Grossi, & Neville, 2004;Marschark et al, 2004;McEvoy, Marschark, & Nelson, 1999; and in deaf children, Green & Shepherd, 1975;Ormel et al, 2010). These studies in general find less finely differentiated semantic categories in the deaf groups.…”

Section: Semantic Categorizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child Modifiability as a Predictor of Language Abilities in Deaf Children Who Use American Sign Language

Mann

Peña

Morgan

2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Verbal Problem‐Solving Difficulties in Autism Spectrum Disorders and Atypical Language Development

Alderson-Day

2014

Autism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) adopt less efficient strategies than typically developing (TD) peers on the Twenty Questions Task (TQT), a measure of verbal problem-solving skills. Although problems with the TQT are typically associated with executive dysfunction, they have also been reported in children who are deaf, suggesting a role for atypical language development. To test the contribution of language history to ASD problem solving, TQT performance was compared in children with high-functioning autism (HFA), children with Asperger syndrome (AS) and TD children. The HFA group used significantly less efficient strategies than both AS and TD children. No group differences were evident on tests of question understanding, planning or verbal fluency. Potential explanations for differences in verbal problem-solving skill are discussed with reference to the development of inner speech and use of visual strategies in ASD. Autism Res 2014, 7: 720-730.

show abstract

Semantic categorization: A comparison between deaf and hearing children

Cited by 25 publications

References 47 publications

Brain activation during phonological and semantic processing of Chinese characters in deaf signers

Brain activation during phonological and semantic processing of Chinese characters in deaf signers

Child Modifiability as a Predictor of Language Abilities in Deaf Children Who Use American Sign Language

Verbal Problem‐Solving Difficulties in Autism Spectrum Disorders and Atypical Language Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About