Theory of Mind and Reading Comprehension in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Signing Children

Abstract

Theory of Mind (ToM) is related to reading comprehension in hearing children. In the present study, we investigated progression in ToM in Swedish deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) signing children who were learning to read, as well as the association of ToM with reading comprehension. Thirteen children at Swedish state primary schools for DHH children performed a Swedish Sign Language (SSL) version of the Wellman and Liu (2004) ToM scale, along with tests of reading comprehension, SSL comprehension, and working memory. Results indicated that ToM progression did not differ from that reported in previous studies, although ToM development was delayed despite age-appropriate sign language skills. Correlation analysis revealed that ToM was associated with reading comprehension and working memory, but not sign language comprehension. We propose that some factor not investigated in the present study, possibly represented by inference making constrained by working memory capacity, supports both ToM and reading comprehension and may thus explain the results observed in the present study.

The relation between working memory and language comprehension in signers and speakers

“…However, because sign comprehension requires encoding visuospatial material into linguistic representations, we also hypothesized that sign language processing draws on resources that support spatial WM, particularly for spatial language comprehension. We note that Holmer, Helmann, and Rudner (2016) found no correlation between scores on a sign language comprehension test and spatial memory in deaf signing children, but their sign comprehension test did not specifically assess spatial language. It is also possible that spatial WM might be correlated with the comprehension of spatial language in both the signed and spoken modality (see Meneghetti et al, 2009).…”

“…This is the first study to examine STM and WM spans for speakers and signers within both linguistic and spatial domains, and the first (to our knowledge) to investigate whether linguistic and/or spatial WM spans are correlated with an objective measure of sign language comprehension (but see Holmer et al, 2016, for results from children). Results from the linguistic STM span measures (ASL and English letter span tasks) revealed the expected advantage for spoken compared to signed language, replicating several previous studies (e.g., Bavelier et al, 2006; Bavelier, Newport et al, 2008; Boutla et al, 2004).…”

Computerized Sign Language-Based Literacy Training for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children

“…Predictor variables were assessed between the two first test occasions, before Omega-is-d2 training commenced. Some of the data relating to the predictor variables and the reading tasks at the initial and final test occasions have been included in other analyses reported elsewhere ( Holmer et al, 2016a , b , Holmer, Heimann, & Rudner, 2016c ).…”

The Understanding of Communicative Intentions in Children with Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss

“…Regardless of whether their language environment is spoken or signed, DHH children who have had limited access to conversation early in life tend to be significantly delayed in Theory of Mind development (Courtin & Melot, 2005;Figueras-Costa & Harris, 2001;Holmer, Heimann, & Rudner, 2016;Jones, Gutierrez, & Ludlow, 2015;Ketelaar, Rieffe, Wiefferink, & Frijns, 2012;Lederberg, Schick, & Spencer, 2013;Morgan & Kegl, 2006;Peterson & Siegal, 1995, 1999Peterson, Wellman, & Liu, 2005;Russell et al, 1998;Schick, De Villiers, De Villiers, & Hoffmeister, 2007;Tomasuolo, Valeri, Di Renzo, Pasqualetti, & Volterra, 2013;Ziv, Most, & Cohen, 2013). In contrast, DHH children who experience unimpeded access to early interaction generally demonstrate appropriate language (Schick, 2003) and Theory of Mind development (Courtin, 2000;Courtin & Melot, 2005;Meristo et al, 2007;Woolfe, Want, & Siegal, 2002).…”