Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Myklebust (1960) |
Deafness is hearing loss that leads to nonfunctional daily living (when not remediated by the environment - e.g. sign language or another form of communication) |
Definition |
|
|
Marschark (1993) |
U.S. census data suggests 1 in 1000 are deaf |
Statistic of prevalence |
|
|
Meadow-Orldris (1987) |
Congenital deafness = 46% Other childhood illness = 25% |
Causes |
|
|
Singleton and Newport (2004) |
Simon (a deaf boy) is 7 years old and has parents who are lTe learners of ASL (so not fluent/ innate signers) Simon hasn't suffered - his signings are better than his aren't and comparable (if not better) to children brought up by native signers. His grammar is correct but his shapes (depicting accent) are not so accurate. Even so this is evidence for the language acquisition device - taking an impoverished input and cleaning it up (grammatical) to use beneficially |
Simon evidence for LAD |
|
|
Senghas et al (2004) |
Nicaraguan emergent sign language study. Found that after first generations children created the pigeon language, the second cohort turned it into a grammatically correct creole |
Nicaraguan emergent sign language study |
|
|
Folven and Bonvillian (1991) |
9 children of deaf signing parents (note only 1 deaf child) Enrolled between 6-14 months of age and studied until 14-18 months of age. Signing milestones compared to spoken language samples Found median onset for signing children was 8.2 months (in comparison to 11-14 months for the speakers) - maybe this is because it's easier to produce complex speech Also found similar vocabulary distribution across signers and speakers suggesting there is arguably no difference in linguistic sense |
Sign language development from hearing children with deaf parents |
|
|
Boutla et al (2004) |
Experiment 1 looked at 12 congenitally deaf signers and 12 hearing speakers. They were looking at digit span signed or spoken respectively They measures reading rates for signs or digits and found no difference in reading rate (good equating of memorability) They found controls (so the speakers) have higher STM span than the signers - maybe an auditory code helps temporal ordering (maybe because we're evolved to deal with auditory input and phonology and the phonological loops is specifically evolved for this function) |
Verbal STM difficulties |
|
|
Roberts et al (2004) |
Meta analysis of 14 prospective studies of children aged 1-5 Found for receptive language on aggregate people with otitis media are doing less well (difference of -0.25) Found for expressive language there is a similar outcome with small effects but something is going on But did not find specific associations as maybe the standardised tests could not pick up the subtleties |
Glue ear: no big differences |
|
|
Majerus et al (2005) |
Studies 20 8 year olds with a hairspray of OME at least 3 months before age 3 and with currently normal hearing 20 CA and nonverbal IQ matched controls Number of tasks include rhyme judgement They found that people with OME can do it but are impaired but when looking at other measures (e.g. Receptive vocabulary) they don't differ Seeing subtle effects are these just quantitative or qualitative? |
Glue ear: subtle effects |
|
|
Harrison et al (2005) |
Liked at 82 children with severe to profound hearing loss from Birth. They a had varying ages of cochlea implants They found that the earlier the implant then the better performance on phonology tasks They did not find a flat function and drop off suggesting no universal age of critical period |
Cochlea implant |
