Dear Dr. Rowley,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 21 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mary Diane Clark, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.  Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf   and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Nicely done paper---I still have a hunch that phonology is serving as an independent code not related to deaf readers--a study for another day. The reviewers have some important points for your to consider in your revision.

I have a few things including that citations are not done in APA for please check the website for the correct format.

Some minor issues:

line 247 showed an array. (delete the word with)

1a you use first, second etc. polynomials and 1b you. Use 1, 2, 3

Please be consistent

Can include some citations in your discussions for each experiment especially in 1a and 1b?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors present a set of eye tracking studies using the Visual World Paradigm to investigate orthographic, phonological, and semantic processing in skilled deaf and hearing readers. Although some of the findings are not particularly robust, one major strength of these studies is their focus on task demands, which helps cut through the noise and make sense of the mixed results in the literature about phonological processing for deaf readers. The manuscript could be enhanced with greater methodological detail and some expansion of the discussion, but overall, I believe it makes a helpful contribution to the field and would be of interest to the readership.

Major comments

• The manuscript is clear, organized, and well written. The introduction thoroughly references relevant literature and provides clear motivation for the studies. The systematic reporting of results was easy to follow, and details for each study were balanced with integration of findings across studies. Addressing some run-on sentences and minor copy edits will further improve readability.

• I would like to see more details about the participants. I am glad to see that groups are carefully matched with respect to age, reading ability, and gender. Did the authors collect any other measures of relevant skills (e.g., English phonological awareness, spelling, vocabulary)? I would be curious to how such behavioral measures relate to the eye tracking effects.

• I would also like more information about the participants’ hearing history and amplification. I assume that the degree of deafness reported is unaided. Do you have information about aided thresholds, given that the majority of participants use hearing aids or cochlear implants? Other relevant details may include: age of implantation, years of use, daily use. Without a measure of phonological awareness, it will be even more important to quantify how much access the participants have to auditory input. Similarly, I see that the late signers all had 10+ years of BSL, but age of BSL exposure would indicate whether language deprivation may have influenced the results.

• Was a power analysis conducted? The authors acknowledge that future studies should not include target items to promote looks to distractors, but I am concerned that the sample size, number of items, high probability of fixating the target compared to a competitor, and exclusion of trials with incorrect responses (especially high for Experiment 1b) have impacted power.

• The discussion (paragraph starting on line 1028) could be expanded by discussing differences in instruction for deaf and hearing readers that affect how deaf readers develop speech-based phonological representations and integrate them with orthographic and semantic information. I think it is also worth mentioning that deaf readers can also develop sign-based phonological awareness, which also supports reading development and complements speech-based phonological awareness for those who can access both sign and speech. See Lederberg, A. R., Branum-Martin, L., Webb, M. Y., Schick, B., Antia, S., Easterbrooks, S. R., & Connor, C. M. (2019). Modality and interrelations among language, reading, spoken phonological awareness, and fingerspelling. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 24(4), 408-423.

• The figures are too small. It is difficult to read the text and to make out some of the picture stimuli.

Minor comments

• Line 96. This section does a nice job of describing studies that had explicit vs. implicit phonological processing demands, which sets up the finding that deaf readers can and do activate phonology for tasks that require it but do not automatically do so for tasks that do not. Does the type of phonological task matter? The studies reviewed here use a variety of deep (phonemic awareness) and shallow (alliteration, rhyming, syllable counting) phonological awareness tasks.

• Line 361. How were pictures selected? Were they balanced on visual properties like color, contrast, brightness, etc. that may influence their visual saliency and attract the participants’ gaze?

• Line 457. Table 5. Is there a reason why the 0.13 p value is highlighted?

• Line 474 typo: fourth

• Line 597. Table 8. Please repeat the note explaining the * for near-native signers

• Line 624. This error rate seems high, especially compared to the other two experiments. Any explanation or comment on how this may have affected power?

• Line 680. Delete ‘on’

• Line 718-719. I would specify that the “processing of words is very similar between skilled deaf and hearing readers” when phonological processing is required for the task. This finding contrasts with the others showing that deaf and hearing readers do not always use phonology similarly.

• Line 768. The examples of stimuli provided here (e.g., night, knight, day, chocolate) made it easy to keep track of the different conditions. Could the same be provided for the other experiments?

• Line 892. Typo: replicates

• Line 1008. Close parentheses

• Line 1068. This sentence is confusing. The punctuation makes it difficult to parse and comprehend.

Reviewer #2: Summary

The study investigates orthographic, semantic, and phonological processing during single word reading in 20 deaf and 20 hearing adult readers, matched on reading skill. Eye-movements were tracked using an adaptation of the visual world paradigm, focusing on implicit phonological processing. The study shows that both deaf and hearing readers exhibit similar time-courses for activating orthographic and semantic information. However, deaf readers rely more on orthographic and semantic cues rather than phonological information. When the task required explicit phonological processing (Experiment 1b), deaf readers could use phonological information effectively. These findings suggest that while phonological processing is less utilized by deaf readers, it does not hinder their reading abilities. This is the first study to use the visual world paradigm to examine word processing in deaf readers. I commend the authors on tackling this important topic.

Strengths

First, the use of the visual world paradigm to examine word processing in deaf readers is novel and provides valuable insights into the reading processes of this population. Secondly, the careful matching of deaf and hearing participants on reading skill ensures that differences observed are not due to disparities in reading ability. Finally, the study provides a detailed analysis of orthographic, semantic, and phonological processing, contributing to our understanding of how deaf readers process written language.

Concerns and suggestions for improvement

First of all, the authors should provide the age of exposure to sign language for late signers. This information is crucial for understanding the variability in language acquisition and its impact on reading processes.

Second, based on the information provided in the figures, I noticed that some (target) images could be more complex than foils. For example, the picture of a boat seems quite complex while the picture of the orthographic distractor is less complex. This could lead to discrepant fixation times across conditions. Without seeing the rest of the picture stimuli, I can’t verify this, of course. The authors should consider reporting a measure of visual complexity to ensure that differences in fixation times are not due to image complexity.

Thirdly, I recommend the authors clarify the time range for the first, second, third, etc., polynomials. Is it 500-1000ms, 1000-1500ms, etc.? Providing this information would help in understanding the temporal dynamics of the observed effects.

The authors should clarify the motivation for the experiments, particularly Experiment 1b, which seemed a bit ad hoc and lack a clear justification. The authors should add a discussion of what is meant by “different viewing strategies” and how these strategies are expected to influence the results.

I would also like to encourage the authors to elaborate more on why it was important to include a mixture of homophonic and non-homophonic nonwords. This explanation would benefit the audience who are less familiar with how deaf people might process written words.

I also felt that clear hypotheses or predictions for Experiments 1a and 1b were missing. Providing explicit hypotheses would strengthen the theoretical framework of the study and guide the interpretation of the results.

Were the deaf participants aware of pseudohomophones in Study 1B? In Experiment 1b, it is important to know whether the participants figured out that the words were pseudohomophones. If they did, they could have used a more overt phonological coding than those who treated the words as non-homophonic pseudowords or nonwords. This could significantly impact the results and their interpretation.

Interpretation of Findings: The differences between groups across conditions are too subtle, yet the authors argue there are key differences in how deaf and hearing readers manage visual information. This argument seems unsubstantiated. A more nuanced interpretation of the findings is needed, acknowledging the subtlety of the observed differences.

My final comment relates to critical discussion of the visual world paradigm. As this appears to be the first study that has used the visual world paradigm to analyze word processing in deaf readers, a more critical discussion of this method is warranted. Previous work suggests that deaf readers exhibit differences in how they manage visual information, especially in the parafovea. The authors should discuss how the visual world paradigm addresses or fails to address these differences.

Overall, this study makes a significant contribution to our understanding of reading processes in deaf readers. However, addressing the above weaknesses would strengthen the study’s methodology and interpretation of findings. I commend the authors for their innovative approach and encourage them to consider these suggestions for improvement.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Zed Sehyr

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Reading with deaf eyes: automatic activation of speech-based phonology during word recognition is task dependent

PONE-D-24-50427R1

Dear Dr. Rowley,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mary Diane Clark, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for responding to the reviewers comments. the paper is a nice extension of past work

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors did an excellent job of addressing reviewer comments whenever possible and noting the rationale or limitations when they were not. Their efforts have strengthened an already-promising manuscript.

Reviewer #3: I have no additional comments. The paper is acceptable. The authors have addressed all the previous reviewers' comments.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********