Skip Navigation



Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access published online on March 18, 2008
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, doi:10.1093/deafed/enn005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rudner, M.
Right arrow Articles by Rönnberg, J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rudner, M.
Right arrow Articles by Rönnberg, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2008 The Author(s)
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Explicit Processing Demands Reveal Language Modality-Specific Organization of Working Memory

Mary Rudner and Jerker Rönnberg

Linköping University


  Abstract

The working memory model for Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) predicts that processing differences between language modalities emerge when cognitive demands are explicit. This prediction was tested in three working memory experiments with participants who were Deaf Signers (DS), Hearing Signers (HS), or Hearing Nonsigners (HN). Easily nameable pictures were used as stimuli to avoid confounds relating to sensory modality. Performance was largely similar for DS, HS, and HN, suggesting that previously identified intermodal differences may be due to differences in retention of sensory information. When explicit processing demands were high, differences emerged between DS and HN, suggesting that although working memory storage in both groups is sensitive to temporal organization, retrieval is not sensitive to temporal organization in DS. A general effect of semantic similarity was also found. These findings are discussed in relation to the ELU model.

Correspondence should be sent to Mary Rudner, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden (e-mail: mary.rudner{at}liu.se).

Received October 9, 2007; revised January 21, 2008; accepted February 7, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.