Working memory
Does language experience shape deaf children's memory?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Deaf children who learn sign language from birth perform just as well on non-verbal memory tests as hearing children, suggesting that early language exposure, rather than hearing itself, shapes working memory development.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Based on a single study, deaf children who learn sign language from birth perform just as well on non-verbal memory tests as hearing children, suggesting that early language experience, rather than hearing itself, shapes working memory development.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cross-sectional — Group comparison of native vs later-exposed deaf signers and hearing children on Corsi and odd-one-out WM, with language covariates
- N
- N=55 · 27 deaf children (8 native BSL, 19 non-native) and 28 hearing children, ages 6–11
- Population
- Deaf children with severe/profound congenital hearing loss who use BSL, and age-matched hearing children
- Outcome
- Non-verbal spatial WM (backward Corsi and odd-one-out); native signers matched hearing children, non-native signers lagged
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
Does language experience shape deaf children's memory?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
6 (lower age limit of recruited deaf children)
Twenty seven deaf children aged 6–11 years old (16 boys) were recruited.
8 (number of native signers in the study)
Based on their exposure to, and use of, BSL, they were divided into two groups: native signers ( n = 8) and non-native signers ( n = 19).
Key findings
The deaf children as a whole scored lower than hearing children on backward spatial memory and the 'odd one out' task, but this deficit was driven entirely by non-native signers. Deaf native signers performed at the same level as hearing children on all memory measures. Additionally, a child's vocabulary score was a significant predictor of their performance on complex working memory tasks, even when controlling for age and non-verbal intelligence.
Methodology
Researchers compared three groups of children aged 6 to 11: 8 deaf native signers (exposed to British Sign Language from birth by deaf parents), 19 deaf non-native signers (who learned sign language later), and 28 hearing children. The children completed non-verbal working memory tasks (tapping block sequences forward and backward, and tracking an 'odd one out' shape) as well as standardized language and non-verbal reasoning assessments. This design allowed the authors to isolate the effects of language deprivation from the physiological effects of deafness.
Limitations
The study had a very small sample of native signers (only 8 children), reflecting how rare this population is, which limits the statistical power of the comparisons. It also relies on a correlational design, meaning it cannot definitively prove whether language development directly causes memory improvements or if another factor, like parental attachment or social interaction, is responsible. Finally, the researchers could not fully determine whether children used silent verbal coding (inner speech or sign) to aid their performance on the visual memory tasks.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.