Reading and Writing

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 375–388 | Cite as

Homophone effects in deaf readers: evidence from lexical decision

  • Deanna C. FriesenEmail author
  • Marc F. Joanisse


The current study examined the nature of deaf readers’ phonological processing during online word recognition, and how this compares to similar effects in hearing individuals. Unlike many previous studies on phonological activation, we examined whether deaf readers activated phonological representations for words as opposed to pseudohomophones. Both hearing and deaf adults performed lexical decisions on homophones and control words in the context of either pseudoword foils (e.g., CLANE) or pseudohomophone foils (e.g., BRANE). As expected, hearing readers responded more slowly to homophones than to control words in both non-word contexts, reflecting phonological activation during reading. In contrast, deaf readers responded more slowly to homophones than to control words in the pseudohomophone foil context, but not in the pseudoword foil context. This finding suggests that deaf readers are able to activate phonological representations; however the nature of these representations appears to be more coarse-grained in deaf readers.


Deaf readers Homophones Phonology Lexical decision 


  1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Beech, J. R., & Harris, M. (1997). The prelingually deaf young reader: A case of reliance on direct lexical access? Journal of Research in Reading, 20, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colin, S., Magnan, A., Ecalle, J., & Leybaert, J. (2007). Relation between deaf children’s phonological skills in kindergarten and word recognition performance in first grade. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. F., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and Performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf schoolchild. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  6. Davelaar, E., Coltheart, M., Besner, D., & Jonasson, J. T. (1978). Phonological recoding and lexical access. Memory and Cognition, 6, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desroches, A. S., Joanisse, M. F., & Robertson, E. K. (2006). Specific phonological impairments in dyslexia revealed by eyetracking. Cognition, 100, B32–B42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillon, C. M., & Pisoni, D. B. (2006). Non-word repetition and reading skills in children who are deaf and have cochlear implants. The Volta Review, 106, 121–145.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, J. D., Pexman, P. M., Goodyear, B. G., & Chambers, C. G. (2005). An fMRI investigation of strategies for word recognition. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 648–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Fagan, M. K., Pisoni, D. B., Horn, D. L., & Dillon, C. M. (2007). Neuropsychological correlates of vocabulary, reading, and working memory in deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geers, A. E. (2003). Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing, 24, 59S–68S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mayberry, M. I. (2001). How do profoundly deaf children learn to read? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanson, V. L. (1989). Phonology and reading: Evidence from profoundly deaf readers. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving and reading puzzle (pp. 69–89). Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hanson, V. L., & Fowler, C. A. (1987). Phonological coding in word reading: Evidence from hearing and deaf readers. Memory & Cognition, 15, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanson, V. L., Goodell, E. W., & Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Tongue-twister effects in the silent reading of hearing and deaf college students. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jared, D., Levy, B. A., & Rayner, K. (1999). The role of phonology in activation of word meanings during reading: Evidence from proofreading and eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 219–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leybaert, J. (1993). Reading in the deaf: The roles of phonological codes. In M. Marschark & M. D. Clark (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on deafness (pp. 269–309). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Leybaert, J., & Alegria, J. (1993). Is word processing involuntary in deaf children? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, P. (2005). What the processing of real words and pseudohomophones can tell us about the development of orthographic knowledge in prelingually deafened individuals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  22. Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken language: Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Jared, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pugh, K. R., Rexer, K., & Katz, L. (1994). Evidence of flexible coding in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 807–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubenstein, H., Lewis, S. S., & Rubenstein, M. A. (1971). Evidence for phonemic recoding in visual word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 645–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swan, D., & Goswami, U. (1997). Phonological awareness deficits in developmental dyslexia and the phonological representations hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Transler, C., & Reitsma, P. (2005). Phonological coding in reading of deaf children: Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Unsworth, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2003). The impact of reader skill on phonological processing in visual word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Orden, G. C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound and reading. Memory and Cognition, 15, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1987). Speech perception in severely disabled and average reading children. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wiederholt, L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray oral reading test-fourth edition (GORT-4). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations