Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Results from previous studies examining phonological processing in deaf adults during reading related tasks.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

The layout of the stimuli presented to participants with the four quadrants used for analysis.

Lines outlining the four quadrants were not shown.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 2.

Participants’ age, gender, and reading scores.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Deaf participants’ level of deafness (self-reported and unaided), amplification aids and sign language background (n = 20, note all deaf participants in this study were born deaf and use BSL as their main language on a daily basis. All participants reported that they were unable to have clear access to speech through a hearing aid).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Examples of items used.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 2.

Timeline of a single experimental trial.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Results from the word and pseudohomophone conditions. Graphs display the proportion of fixation samples between 0 ms and 2000 ms for deaf and hearing readers in each condition. Here the labels “pseudotarget”, “pseudosemantic” and “pseudophonological” refer to the relationship of the picture to the word from which the pseudohomophone is derived, e.g., kote (pseudotarget – from coat), shirt (semantic), and boat (phonological). Summary tables below the graphs show significant differences in the bin-by-bin analyses between the unrelated condition and each of the remaining distractor conditions: target (T), semantically related (S), and phonologically related (R) for hearing and deaf participants separately for word and pseudowords.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 5.

Parameter estimates for each time polynomial, group and interactions for each time polynomial and group for target items, semantic and phonological distractors in the word condition.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Table 6.

Parameter estimates for each time polynomial, group and interactions for each time polynomial and group for pseudotarget items, pseudosemantic and pseudophonological distractors in the pseudohomophone condition.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Participants’ age, gender, and reading level.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Deaf participants’ deafness, amplification aids and language background.

More »

Table 8 Expand

Table 9.

Parameter estimates for each time polynomial, group and interactions for each time polynomial and group for pseudotarget items, pseudosemantic and pseudophonological distractors in the pseudohomophone condition.

More »

Table 9 Expand

Fig 4.

Proportion of fixation samples between 0 ms and 2500 ms for deaf readers and hearing readers for Experiment 1a. Here the labels “pseudotarget”, “pseudosemantic” and “pseudophonological” refer to the relationship of the picture to the word from which the pseudohomophone is derived. (E.g., kote (from coat), shirt (semantic), and boat (phonological). Summary tables below the graphs show significant differences in the bin-by-bin analyses between the unrelated condition and each of the remaining distractor conditions: target (T), semantically related (S), and phonologically related (R) for hearing participants and deaf participants separately for word and pseudowords.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Layout of the stimuli presented to participants in the homophone condition (Description of stimuli from top-left to bottom-right; chocolate (unrelated), day (semantic), knight (homophonic) and night (target) and in the orthographic condition (Description of stimuli from top-left to bottom-right; anchor (semantic), boat (target), boot (orthographically similar) and mug (unrelated).

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 10.

Parameter estimates for each time polynomial, group and interactions for each time polynomial and group for target items, semantic and homophonic distractors in the homophone condition.

More »

Table 10 Expand

Fig 6.

Results from the homophone (a) and orthographic (b) conditions. Graphs display the proportion of fixation from the first bin 0−100 ms to the last bin 1900−200 ms for deaf and hearing readers in each condition. Summary tables below the graphs show significant differences in the bin-by-bin analyses between the unrelated condition and each of the remaining distractor conditions: target (T), semantically related (S), and phonologically or orthographically related for hearing and deaf participants separately for word and pseudowords.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 11.

Parameter estimates for each time polynomial, group and interactions for each time polynomial and group for target items, semantic and orthographic distractors in the orthographic condition.

More »

Table 11 Expand