Levels of illiteracy in deaf populations around the world have been extremely high for decades and much higher than the illiteracy levels found in the general population. Research has mostly focused on deaf readers’ difficulties rather than on their strengths, but having a better grasp of deaf readers’ strengths could inform reading education. Deaf readers are a unique population. They process language and the world surrounding them mostly via the visual channel, and this greatly affects how they read or might learn to read. The study of eye movements in reading provides highly sophisticated information about how words and sentences are processed, and our research with deaf readers reveals the importance of their uniqueness.
BavelierD.DyeM. W. G.HauserP. (2006). (See References). A review article on enhanced attention allocation in the periphery in deaf individuals.
2.
Goldin-MeadowS.MayberryR. I. (2001). (See References). A review article on reading acquisition in deaf children.
3.
KellyL.Barac-CikojaD. (2007). (See References). A review article on reading research in the deaf population.
4.
RaynerK. (1998). (See References). A review article on eye movement research.
5.
SchotterE. R.AngeleB.RaynerK. (2012). (See References). A review article on parafoveal information processing during reading.
6.
AshbyJ.RaynerK.CliftonC. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: Differential effects of frequency and predictability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1065–1086.
7.
BavelierD.DyeM. W. G.HauserP. (2006). Do deaf individuals see better?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 512–518.
8.
BélangerN. N.BaumS. R.MayberryR. I. (2012). Reading difficulties in adult deaf readers of French: Phonological codes, not guilty!Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 263–285.
9.
BélangerN. N.MayberryR. I.RaynerK. (2013). Orthographic and phonological preview benefits: Parafoveal processing in skilled and less-skilled deaf readers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 2237–2252.
10.
BélangerN. N.RaynerK. (2013). Frequency and predictability effects in eye fixations for skilled and less-skilled deaf readers. Visual Cognition, 21, 477–497.
11.
BélangerN. N.SchotterE.RaynerK. (2014, November). Young deaf readers’ word processing efficiency. 55th Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Long Beach, CA.
12.
BélangerN. N.SlatteryT. J.MayberryR. I.RaynerK. (2012). Skilled deaf readers have an enhanced perceptual span in reading. Psychological Science, 23, 816–823.
13.
BlytheH. (2014). Developmental changes in eye movements and visual information encoding associated with learning to read. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 201–207.
14.
ChamberlainC.MayberryR. I. (2008). ASL syntactic and narrative comprehension in skilled and less skilled adult readers: Bilingual-bimodal evidence for the linguistic basis of reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 368–388.
15.
EhriL. C. (1991). Learning to read and spell words. In RiebenL.PerfettiC. A. (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 57–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
EmmoreyK.WeisbergJ.McCulloughS.PetrichJ. A. F. (2013). Mapping the reading circuitry for skilled deaf readers: An fMRI study of semantic and phonological processing. Brain & Language, 126, 169–180.
17.
FrithU. (1985). Beneath the surface of phonetic dyslexia. In PattersonK.MarshallJ.ColtheartM. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 301–330). London, England: Erlbaum.
18.
Goldin-MeadowS.MayberryR. I. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to read?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Special issues: Emergent and early literacy: Current status and research directions), 16, 222–229.
19.
GoughP. B.HillingerM. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 20, 179–196.
20.
HendersonJ. M.FerreiraF. (1990). Effects of foveal processing difficulty on the perceptual span in reading: Implications for attention and eye movement control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 417–429.
HohensteinS.KlieglR. (2014). Semantic preview benefit during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 166–190.
23.
KellyL. (2003). The importance of processing automaticity and temporary storage capacity to the differences in comprehension between skilled and less skilled college-age deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 230–249.
24.
KellyL.Barac-CikojaD. (2007). The comprehension of skilled deaf readers: The roles of word recognition and other potentially critical aspects of competence. In CainK.OakhillJ. (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 244–279). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
MatinE. (1974). Saccadic suppression: A review and an analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 899–917.
26.
MayberryR. I.del GiudiceA. A.LiebermanA. M. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16, 164–188.
27.
McConkieG. W.RaynerK. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586.
28.
MielletS.O’DonnellP. J.SerenoS. C. (2009). Parafoveal magnification: Visual acuity does not modulate the perceptual span in reading. Psychological Science, 20, 721–728.
29.
PaulP. V.WangY.TrezekB. J.LucknerJ. L. (2009). Phonology is necessary, but not sufficient: A rejoinder. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 154, 346–356.
30.
PollatsekA.LeschM.MorrisR. K.RaynerK. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148–162.
31.
ProkschJ.BavelierD. (2002). Changes in the spatial distribution of visual attention after early deafness. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 687–701.
32.
RaynerK. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65-81.
33.
RaynerK. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 211–236.
34.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
35.
RaynerK. (2009). The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention during reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1457–1506.
36.
RaynerK.BerteraJ. H. (1979). Reading without a fovea. Science, 206, 468–469.
37.
RaynerK.FoormanB. F.PerfettiC. A.PesetskyD.SeidenbergM. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74.
38.
RaynerK.SchotterE. R. (2014). Semantic preview benefit in reading English: The effect of initial letter capitalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1617–1628.
39.
SchotterE. R. (2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 619–633.
TranslerC.GombertJ.-E.LeybaertJ. (2001). Phonological decoding in severely and profoundly deaf children: Similarity judgment between written pseudowords. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 61–82.
42.
WatersG.DoehringD. (1990). Reading acquisition in congenitally deaf children who communicate orally: Insights from an analysis of component reading, language, and memory skills. In CarrT. H.LevyB. A. (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 323–373). New York, NY: Academic Press.
43.
YanM.PanJ.BélangerN. N.ShuH. (2014). Chinese deaf readers have early access to parafoveal semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi:10.1037/xlm0000035
