The effects of auditory deprivation on successive processing.

Abstract

This article reviews psychological studies of sequential memory in hearing impaired subjects. Such studies are important for two main reasons. Firstly, deaf students and adults can be viewed as natural experiments. As such, they afford a possible means whereby more might be learned about "normal processors" of information (Conrad, 1979). Secondly, the effects of prelingual auditory deprivation are potentially devastating and have defied psychological and educational interventions (Quigley & Kretschmer, 1982). The present article focuses on successivity and successive processing using the Das, Kirby, and Jarman (1975, 1979) model of cognitive processing. The existing literature is used to provide suggestions about why syntactic processing of English is so difficult for deaf students. The implications are considered for the development of speech and reading English by prelingual profoundly deaf students.

Routes to short-term memory indexing: Lessons from deaf native users of American Sign Language

“…Similarly, deaf and hearing individuals have been found to perform equally well when tested on free recall tasks that typically exceed the capacity of the phonological buffer and its rehearsal process (D. Bavelier, Newport, et al, 2008; Cumming & Rodda, 1985; Hanson, 1982, 1990; Krakow & Hanson, 1985). Thus, both the ‘Auditory Scaffolding Hypothesis’ and this latter view predict lesser performance in deaf than hearing individuals on tasks that require serial order recall of verbal material.…”

Working memory, deafness and sign language

“…Other works shows that deaf subjects, unlike hearing subjects, show no preference for forward over backward recall (Andin, Rudner & Rönnberg, 2008; O’Connor & Hermelin, 1976; Wilson et al ., 1997). In a review of the literature on the effects of auditory deprivation on successive processing, Cumming and Rodda (1985) came to the conclusion that the spatial bias of deaf individuals resulting from sign language use seems to result in a decreased emphasis on temporal ordering. Thus, it is well established that deafness leads to differences in temporal processes and as temporal coding plays a key role in working memory processing, these differences may to a certain degree account for intermodality span differences.…”

Cognitive Processing of Students with and without Hearing Loss

“…Are students with hearing loss poor in higher cognitive skills such as reasoning and problem solving? It has been suggested that as cognitive functions move from representational processes to higher symbolic modes, the likelihood of individuals with hearing loss completing such tasks diminishes (Cumming & Rodda, 1985). Other studies generally confirm this impression (Arnold & Walter, 1979;Furth, 1964;Quigley & Kretschmer, 1982).…”