Search for: All records

Abstract Both deaf and hearing readers use morphological awareness skills to decode and comprehend printed English. Deaf readers, for whom phonological awareness is a relative weakness while orthographic sensitivity is a strength, may have a different relationship with morphology than similarly skilled hearing readers. This study investigated the impact of various reading sub-skills—spelling, vocabulary size, morphological awareness, and phonological awareness—on reading comprehension for deaf and hearing adult readers. Morphological awareness had a stronger relationship with reading comprehension for deaf than hearing readers, particularly for deaf readers with advanced morphological skills. Morphology and vocabulary were also more strongly related for the deaf group, indicating that deaf readers leverage morphology to expand their word knowledge. Overall, the findings highlight the unique and significant role of morphological awareness in the skilled deaf reader’s “toolbox” and underscore the importance of morphological instruction in supporting the reading development of deaf individuals. 

Theories of reading posit that decisions about “where” and “when” to move the eyes are driven by visual and linguistic factors, extracted from the perceptual span and word identification span, respectively. We tested this hypothesized dissociation by masking, outside of a visible window, either the spaces between the words (to assess the perceptual span, Experiment 1) or the letters within the words (to assess the word identification span, Experiment 2). We also investigated whether deaf readers’ previously reported larger reading span was specifically linked to one of these spans. We analyzed reading rate to test overall reading efficiency, as well as average saccade length to test “where” decisions and average fixation duration to test “when” decisions. Both hearing and deaf readers’ perceptual spans extended between 10 and 14 characters, and their word identification spans extended to eight characters to the right of fixation. Despite similar sized rightward spans, deaf readers read more efficiently overall and showed a larger increase in reading rate when leftward text was available, suggesting they attend more to leftward information. Neither rightward span was specifically related to where or when decisions for either group. Our results challenge the assumed dissociation between type of reading span and type of saccade decision and indicate that reading efficiency requires access to both perceptual and linguistic information in the parafovea. 

Little is known about how information to the left of fixation impacts reading and how it may help to integrate what has been read into the context of the sentence. To better understand the role of this leftward information and how it may be beneficial during reading, we compared the sizes of the leftward span for reading-matched deaf signers ( n = 32) and hearing adults ( n = 40) using a gaze-contingent moving window paradigm with windows of 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13 characters to the left, as well as a no-window condition. All deaf participants were prelingually and profoundly deaf, used American Sign Language (ASL) as a primary means of communication, and were exposed to ASL before age eight. Analysis of reading rates indicated that deaf readers had a leftward span of 10 characters, compared to four characters for hearing readers, and the size of the span was positively related to reading comprehension ability for deaf but not hearing readers. These findings suggest that deaf readers may engage in continued word processing of information obtained to the left of fixation, making reading more efficient, and showing a qualitatively different reading process than hearing readers.