Premium
Immediate memory in the orally trained deaf: Effects of ‘lipreadability’ in the recall of written syllables
Author(s) -
Campbell Ruth,
Wright Helen
Publication year - 1989
Publication title -
british journal of psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.536
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 2044-8295
pISSN - 0007-1269
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02322.x
Subject(s) - psychology , recall , audiology , articulation (sociology) , syllable , articulatory suppression , consonant , reading (process) , linguistics , cognitive psychology , working memory , short term memory , cognition , vowel , medicine , philosophy , neuroscience , politics , political science , law
Immediate recall of written lists was compared in strictly orally trained born‐deaf teenagers and in hearing controls. The lists were of syllables of CV form (e.g. SHA NA ZA DA). The deaf subjects showed a significant effect of consonant ‘lipreadability’. Syllable lists containing consonants like D, SH and Z whose place of articulation is not visibly distinctive and which are therefore hard to lipread are less well recalled than (phonetically and orthographically matched) syllable lists containing consonants like F, TH and B which are produced with the tongue, teeth and lips in visible configuration. We conclude that for these deaf youngsters the phonological representation of written consonants is less secure for speech sounds that are hard, rather than easy, to lipread. The oral training of these youngsters has had an effect on their internal representation of written speech. Hearing subjects showed no ‘lipreadability’ effect in their recall of these lists. Reading‐age matched controls (aged 8−10 years) showed significantly shorter span for both list types than the deaf group. Older hearing controls (14−16 years) matched the deaf group in span and tended to recall most accurately written syllables which are not easily lipread. We discuss these comparisons and conclude that while this group of deaf subjects is using a phonological code in the recall of written syllables, it is qualitatively different from that used by hearing subjects in this task. In particular, not only hard‐to‐lipread consonants but also vowels may be less strongly represented in these deaf readers’ ‘inner voice’.