Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:34:11.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word skipping in deaf and hearing bilinguals: Cognitive control over eye movements remains with increased perceptual span

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2021

Matthew J. Traxler Open the ORCID record for Matthew J. Traxler [Opens in a new window] ,
Timothy Banh ,
Madeline M. Craft ,
Kurt Winsler ,
Trevor A. Brothers ,
Liv J. Hoversten ,
Pilar Piñar  and
David P. Corina
Matthew J. Traxler*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Timothy Banh
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Madeline M. Craft
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Kurt Winsler
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Trevor A. Brothers
Affiliation:
Tufts University
Liv J. Hoversten
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Pilar Piñar
Affiliation:
Gallaudet University
David P. Corina
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
*
*Correspondence author: E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deaf readers may have larger perceptual spans than ability-matched hearing native English readers, allowing them to read more efficiently (Belanger & Rayner, 2015). To further test the hypothesis that deaf and hearing readers have different perceptual spans, the current study uses eye-movement data from two experiments in which deaf American Sign Language–English bilinguals, hearing native English speakers, and hearing Chinese–English bilinguals read semantically unrelated sentences and answered comprehension questions after a proportion of them. We analyzed skip rates, fixation times, and accuracy on comprehension questions. In addition, we analyzed how lexical properties of words affected skipping behavior and fixation durations. Deaf readers skipped words more often than native English speakers, who skipped words more often than Chinese–English bilinguals. Deaf readers had shorter first-pass fixation times than the other two groups. All groups’ skipping behaviors were affected by lexical frequency. Deaf readers’ comprehension did not differ from hearing Chinese–English bilinguals, despite greater skipping and shorter fixation times. Overall, the eye-tracking findings align with Belanger’s word processing efficiency hypothesis. Effects of lexical frequency on skipping behavior indicated further that eye movements during reading remain under cognitive control in deaf readers.

Keywords

deafnesseye-trackingliteracyperceptual spanreading
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , May 2021 , pp. 601 - 630
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, E., Verhage, M., Veenvliet, J. V., Dolan, C. V., & Sluis, S. V. (2014). A solution to dependency: Using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nature Neuroscience, 17, 491–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anible, B., Twitchell, P., Waters, G. S., Dussias, P. E., Piñar, P., & Morford, J. P. (2015). Sensitivity to verb bias in American Sign Language–English bilinguals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., … Bolker, M. B. (2015). Package “lme4.” Convergence, 12, 2.Google Scholar
Bavelier, D., Dye, M. W., & Hauser, P. C. (2006). Do deaf individuals see better? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 512–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bavelier, D., Tomann, A., Hutton, C., Mitchell, T., Corina, D., Liu, G., & Neville, H. (2000). Visual attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, RC931–RC936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belanger, N. N., Lee, M., & Schotter, E. R. (2018). Young skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bélanger, N. N., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, K. (2013). Orthographic and phonological preview benefits: Parafoveal processing in skilled and less-skilled deaf readers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2237–2252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belanger, N. N., & Rayner, K. (2015). What eye movements reveal about deaf readers. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 220–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bélanger, N. N., Slattery, T. J., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, K. (2012). Skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Psychological Science, 23, 816–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosworth, R. G., & Dobkins, K. R. (2002). The effects of spatial attention on motion processing in deaf signers, hearing signers, and hearing nonsigners. Brain and Cognition, 49, 152–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosworth, R. G., Petrich, J. A., & Dobkins, K. R. (2013). Effects of attention and laterality on motion and orientation discrimination in deaf signers. Brain and Cognition, 82, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brothers, T. A., & Traxler, M. J. (2016). Anticipating syntax during reading: Evidence from the boundary change paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1894–1906.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. A., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson–Denny Reading Test: Manual for scoring and interpretation, Forms G & H. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Vitu, F. (1998). Word skipping: Implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 125–147). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cates, D., Traxler, M. J., & Corina, D. P. (2020). Predictors of reading comprehension skill in deaf and hearing bilingual readers. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Chateau, D., & Jared, D. (2000). Exposure to print and word recognition processes. Memory & Cognition, 28, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual-route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dominguez, A. B., & Alegria, J. (2010). Reading mechanism in orally educated deaf adults. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 15, 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dye, M. W., Baril, D. E., & Bavelier, D. (2007). Which aspects of visual attention are changed by deafness? The case of the Attentional Network Test. Neuropsychologia, 45, 1801–1811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dye, M. W., Hauser, P. C., & Bavelier, D. (2009). Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or deficient? The case of the useful field of view. PLOS ONE, 4, e5640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E. M., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). Multivariate linear models in R. In An R companion to applied regression. Los Angeles: Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Freed, E. M., Hamilton, S. T., & Long, D. L. (2017). Comprehension in proficient readers: The nature of individual variation. Journal of Memory and Language, 97, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frenck-Mestre, C. (2005). Eye-movement recording as a tool for studying syntactic processing in a second language: A review of methodologies and experimental findings. Second Language Research, 21, 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goold, J. E., Choi, W., & Henderson, J. M. (2019). Cortical control of eye movements in natural reading: Evidence from MVPA. Experimental Brain Research, 237, 3099–3107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W., Mitchell, D. C., & Hammond, E. J. (1981). The scheduling of text integration processes in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, S. T., Freed, E. M., & Long, D. L. (2013). Modeling reader and text interactions during narrative comprehension: A test of the lexical quality hypothesis. Discourse Processes, 50, 139–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, S. T., Freed, E. M., & Long, D. L. (2016). Word-decoding skill interacts with working memory capacity to influence inference generation during reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417.Google ScholarPubMed
Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jared, D., Levy, B., & Rayner, K. (1999). The role of phonology in the activation of word meanings during reading: Evidence from proofreading and eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 219–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test: KBIT. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., & van Dyke, J. A. (2011). Effects of individual differences in verbal skills on eye-movement patterns during sentence reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 42–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neville, H. J., & Lawson, D. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: An event-related potential and behavioral study: II. Congenitally deaf adults. Brain Research, 405, 268–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, J., Shu, H., Wang, Y., & Yan, M. (2015). Parafoveal activation of sign translation previews among deaf readers during the reading of Chinese sentences. Memory & Cognition, 43, 964–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parasnis, I., & Samar, V. J. (1985). Parafoveal attention in congenitally deaf and hearing young adults. Brain and Cognition, 4, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piñar, P., Carlson, M. T., Morford, J. P., & Dussias, P. E. (2017). Bilingual deaf readers’ use of semantic and syntactic cues in the processing of English relative clauses. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 980–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollatsek, A., Bolozky, S., Well, A. D., & Rayner, K. (1981). Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers. Brain and Language, 14, 174–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K. (1978). Eye movements in reading and information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The Psychology of Reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google ScholarPubMed
Rayner, K., Reichle, E. D., Stroud, M. J., Williams, C. C., & Pollatsek, A. (2006). The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 21, 448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Reichle, E. D., & Pollatsek, A. (2010). Cognitive processes in reading: The EZ Reader model of eye-movement control. In From Inkmarks to Ideas (pp. 152–178). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, K., & Reingold, E. M. (2015). Evidence for direct cognitive control of fixation durations during reading. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 1, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Well, A. D., Pollatsek, A., & Bertera, J. H. (1982). The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Reineberg, A. E., & Schooler, J. W. (2010). Eye movements during mindless reading. Psychological Science, 21, 1300–1310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichle, E. D., Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2009). Using EZ Reader to model the effects of higher level language processing on eye movements during reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samar, V. J., & Berger, L. (2017). Does a flatter general gradient of visual attention explain peripheral advantages and central deficits in deaf adults? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schotter, E. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 619–633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schotter, E. R., Angele, B., & Rayner, K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 5–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seymour, J. L., Low, K. A., Maclin, E. L., Chiarelli, A. M., Mathewson, K. E., Fabiani, M., … Dye, M. W. (2017). Reorganization of neural systems mediating peripheral visual selective attention in the deaf: An optical imaging study. Hearing Research, 343, 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Corina, D. P., Morford, J. P., Hafer, S., & Hoversten, L. J. (2014). Deaf readers’ response to syntactic complexity: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory & Cognition, 42, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traxler, M. J., Long, D. L., Tooley, K. M., Johns, C. L., Zirnstein, M., & Jonathan, E. (2012). Individual differences in eye-movements during reading: Working memory and speed-of-processing effects. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K., & Seely, R. E. (2002). Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (1996). Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 454–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C. Jr. (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2003). The impact of reader skill on phonological processing in visual word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56A, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1176–1190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wanner, E. H., & Maratsos, M. (1978). An ATN approach to comprehension. In Halle, M. A., Bresnan, J., & Miller, G. A. (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 119–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H. J. (1996). Maturational constraints on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 231–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, S. J. (2008). Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 205.Google ScholarPubMed
Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Simulating consistency effects and individual differences in nonword naming: A comparison of current models. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar