6533b7d1fe1ef96bd125cc1a
RESEARCH PRODUCT
The impact of visual cues during visual word recognition in deaf readers: An ERP study
Eva Gutierrez-sigutEva Gutierrez-sigutManuel PereaMarta Vergara-martínezsubject
MaleLinguistics and Languagemedicine.medical_specialtygenetic structuresCognitive Neurosciencemedia_common.quotation_subjectExperimental and Cognitive PsychologyDeafnessElectroencephalographyAudiologyLanguage and LinguisticsStimulus (psychology)Reading (process)otorhinolaryngologic diseasesDevelopmental and Educational PsychologyLexical decision taskmedicineHumansEvoked PotentialsSensory cuemedia_commonVisual word recognitionmedicine.diagnostic_testElectroencephalographyN400ReadingWord recognitionFemaleCuesPsychologydescription
Abstract Although evidence is still scarce, recent research suggests key differences in how deaf and hearing readers use visual information during visual word recognition. Here we compared the time course of lexical access in deaf and hearing readers of similar reading ability. We also investigated whether one visual property of words, the outline-shape, modulates visual word recognition differently in both groups. We recorded the EEG signal of twenty deaf and twenty hearing readers while they performed a lexical decision task. In addition to the effect of lexicality, we assessed the impact of outline-shape by contrasting responses to pseudowords with an outline-shape that was consistent (e.g., mofor) or inconsistent (e.g., mosor) with their baseword (motor). Despite hearing readers having higher phonological abilities, results showed a remarkably similar time course of the lexicality effect in deaf and hearing readers. We also found that only for deaf readers, inconsistent-shape pseudowords (e.g., mosor) elicited larger amplitude ERPs than consistent-shape pseudowords (e.g., mofor) from 150 ms after stimulus onset and extending into the N400 time window. This latter finding supports the view that deaf readers rely more on visual characteristics than typical hearing readers during visual word recognition. Altogether, our results suggest different mechanisms underlying effective word recognition in deaf and hearing readers.
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2021-06-23 | Cognition |