The Effect of Presentation Mode and Production Type on Word Memory for Hearing Impaired Signers

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Production effect (PE) is a memory phenomenon referring to better memory for produced (vocalized) than for non-produced (silently read) items. Reading aloud was found to improve verbal memory for normal-hearing individuals, as well as for cochlear implant users, studying visually and aurally presented material.

Purpose:

The present study tested the effect of presentation mode (written or signed) and production type (vocalization or signing) on word memory in a group of hearing impaired young adults, sign-language users.

Research Design:

A PE paradigm was used, in which participants learned lexical items by two presentation modes, written or signed. We evaluated the efficacy of two types of productions: vocalization and signing, using a free recall test.

Study Sample:

Twenty hearing-impaired young adults, Israeli sign language (ISL) users, participated in the study, ten individuals who mainly use manual communication (MC) (ISL as a first language), and ten who mainly use total communication (TC).

Data Collection and Analysis:

For each condition, we calculated the proportion of study words recalled. A mixed-design analysis of variance was conducted, with learning condition (written-vocalize, written-signed, and manual-signed) and production type (production and no-production) as within-subject variables, and group (MC and TC) as a between-subject variable.

Results:

Production benefit was documented across all learning conditions, with better memory for produced over non-produced words. Recall rates were higher when learning written words relative to signed words. Production by signing yielded better memory relative to vocalizing.

Conclusions:

The results are explained in light of the encoding distinctiveness account, namely, the larger the number of unique encoding processes involved at study, the better the memory benefit.

• REFERENCES

• Baddeley A. 1986. Working Memory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press;
  Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. 2000; The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?. Trends Cogn Sci 4 (11) 417-423
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baddeley A, Gathercole S, Papagno C. 1998; The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychol Rev 105 (01) 158-173
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bavelier D, Dye MW, Hauser PC. 2006; Do deaf individuals see better?. Trends Cogn Sci 10 (11) 512-518
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bjork RA. 1994. Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In: Metcalfe J, Shimamura A. Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 185-205
  Google Scholar
• Bjork RA. 1999. Assessing our own competence: heuristics and illusions. In: Gopher D, Koriat A. Attention and Performance XVII: Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of Theory and Application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 435-459
  Google Scholar
• Conway MA, Gathercole SE. 1990; Writing and long-term memory: evidence for a “translation” hypothesis. Q J Exp Psychol A 42: 513-527
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Corina DP, Lawyer LA, Hauser P, Hirshorn E. 2013; Lexical processing in deaf readers: an FMRI investigation of reading proficiency. PLoS One 8 (01) e54696
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Emmorey K. 2002. Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
  Google Scholar
• Emmorey K, Borinstein HB, Thompson R, Gollan TH. 2008; Bimodal bilingualism. Biling (Camb Engl) 11 (01) 43-61
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Emmorey K, Bosworth R, Kraljic T. 2009; Visual feedback and self-monitoring of sign language. J Mem Lang 61 (03) 398-411
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fitzpatrick EM, Stevens A, Garritty C, Moher D. 2013; The effects of sign language on spoken language acquisition in children with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 2: 108
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forrin ND, Jonker TR, MacLeod CM. 2014; Production improves memory equivalently following elaborative vs non-elaborative processing. Memory 22 (05) 470-480
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forrin ND, Macleod CM, Ozubko JD. 2012; Widening the boundaries of the production effect. Mem Cognit 40 (07) 1046-1055
  Google Scholar
• Geers AE, Pisoni DB, Brenner C. 2013; Complex working memory span in cochlear implanted and normal hearing teenagers. Otol Neurotol 34 (03) 396-401
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hamilton H, Holzman TG. 1989; Linguistic encoding in short-term memory as a function of stimulus type. Mem Cognit 17 (05) 541-550
  Google Scholar
• Icht M, Bergerzon-Biton O, Mama Y. 2016; The production effect in adults with dysarthria: improving long-term verbal memory by vocal production. Neuropsychol Rehabil 1-13
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Icht M, Mama Y. 2015; The production effect in memory: a prominent mnemonic in children. J Child Lang 42 (05) 1102-1124
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Icht M, Mama Y, Algom D. 2014; The production effect in memory: multiple species of distinctiveness. Front Psychol 5: 886
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnston T. 2004; W(h)ither the deaf community? Population, genetics, and the future of Australian sign language. Am Ann Deaf 148 (05) 358-375
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnston T, Schembri A. 2007. Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An Introduction to Sign Language Linguistics. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press;
  Google Scholar
• Karchmer MA, Mitchell RE. 2003. Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard of hearing students. In: Marschark M, Spencer PE. Oxford Handbook of Deaf Studies, Language, and Education. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 21-37
  Google Scholar
• Lane H, Grodin M. 1997; Ethical issues in cochlear implant surgery: an exploration into disease, disability, and the best interests of the child. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 7 (03) 231-251
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lin OY, MacLeod CM. 2012; Aging and the production effect: a test of the distinctiveness account. Can J Exp Psychol 66 (03) 212-216
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacLeod CM. 2011; I said, you said: the production effect gets personal. Psychon Bull Rev 18 (06) 1197-1202
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• MacLeod CM, Gopie N, Hourihan KL, Neary KR, Ozubko JD. 2010; The production effect: delineation of a phenomenon. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36 (03) 671-685
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mama Y, Icht M. 2016; a Auditioning the distinctiveness account: expanding the production effect to the auditory modality reveals the superiority of writing over vocalising. Memory 24 (01) 98-113
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mama Y, Icht M. 2016; b Influence of retrieval mode on effects of production: evidence for costs in free recall. Can J Exp Psychol 70 (02) 177-185
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marmor GS, Petitto L. 1979; Simultaneous communication in the classroom: how well is English grammar represented?. Sign Lang Stud 23 (01) 99-136
  Google Scholar
• McGuire PK, Robertson D, Thacker A, David AS, Kitson N, Frackowiak RS, Frith CD. 1997; Neural correlates of thinking in sign language. Neuroreport 8 (03) 695-698
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meyer TA, Svirsky MA, Kirk KI, Miyamoto RT. 1998; Improvements in speech perception by children with profound prelingual hearing loss: effects of device, communication mode, and chronological age. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41 (04) 846-858
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morford JP, Wilkinson E, Villwock A, Piñar P, Kroll JF. 2011; When deaf signers read English: do written words activate their sign translations?. Cognition 118 (02) 286-292
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newport E, Meier R. 1985. The acquisition of American sign language. In: Slobin D. The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 881-938
  Google Scholar
• Ozubko JD, Hourihan KL, MacLeod CM. 2012; Production benefits learning: the production effect endures and improves memory for text. Memory 20 (07) 717-727
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ozubko JD, Macleod CM. 2010; The production effect in memory: evidence that distinctiveness underlies the benefit. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 36 (06) 1543-1547
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paivio A, Lambert W. 1981; Dual coding and bilingual memory. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 20 (05) 532-539
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Pisoni DB, Kronenberger WG, Roman AS, Geers AE. 2011; Measures of digit span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after more than 10 years of cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 32 (1, Suppl) 60S-74S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quinlan CK, Taylor TL. 2013; Enhancing the production effect in memory. Memory 21 (08) 904-915
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shafer VL, Garrido-Nag K. 2007. The neurodevelopmental bases of language, chapter 2. In: Hoff E, Shatz M. Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 21-45 ‏
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Svirsky MA, Robbins AM, Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT. 2000; Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci 11 (02) 153-158
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taitelbaum-Swead R, Icht M, Mama Y. 2017; The effect of learning modality and auditory feedback on word memory: cochlear implanted vs normal hearing adults. J Am Acad Audiol 28 (03) 222-231
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson M. 2001; The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychon Bull Rev 8 (01) 44-57
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson M, Emmorey K. 1997; A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: evidence from American sign language. Mem Cognit 25 (03) 313-320
  Google Scholar
• Wilson M, Emmorey K. 1998; A “word length effect” for sign language: further evidence for the role of language in structuring working memory. Mem Cognit 26 (03) 584-590
  Google Scholar