Reading skill modulates the effect of parafoveal distractors on foveal lexical decision in deaf students

PLoS One. 2019 Sep 12;14(9):e0221891. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221891. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

In low-level perceptual tasks and reading tasks, deaf individuals show a redistribution of spatial visual attention toward the parafoveal and peripheral visual fields. In the present study, the experiment adopted the modified flanker paradigm and utilized a lexical decision task to investigate how these unique visual skills may influence foveal lexical access in deaf individuals. It was predicted that irrelevant linguistic stimuli presented in parafoveal vision, during a lexical decision task, would produce a larger interference effect for deaf college student readers if the stimuli acted as distractors during the task. The results showed there was a larger interference effect in deaf college student readers compared to the interference effect observed in participants with typical levels of hearing. Furthermore, deaf college student readers with low-skilled reading levels showed a larger interference effect than those with high-skilled reading levels. The current study demonstrates that the redistribution of spatial visual attention toward the parafoveal visual regions in deaf students impacts foveal lexical processing, and this effect is modulated by reading skill. The findings are discussed in relation to the potential effect that enhanced parafoveal attention may have on everyday reading for deaf individuals.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Attention
  • Case-Control Studies
  • Deafness / physiopathology
  • Deafness / psychology*
  • Education of Hearing Disabled
  • Female
  • Fovea Centralis / physiopathology*
  • Humans
  • Language Tests
  • Male
  • Persons With Hearing Impairments / psychology*
  • Reading
  • Recognition, Psychology
  • Semantics
  • Spatial Navigation
  • Students / psychology*
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

This research was supported by National Social Science Fund of China (16BYY074) grant awarded to Guoli Yan. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.