编码方式对不同拼音能力聋生汉字音位识别的影响

本研究通过分析编码方式对高、中、低拼音能力聋生汉字声母、单韵母识别的具体作用,深入探究聋生书面汉字音位编码的加工特点。结果发现:指拼是一种视觉语音代码,与拼音字母共同作用于聋生书面汉字的语音解码,但字母编码加工速度更快;聋生识别汉字声母显著好于单韵母,对汉字音位遵循从左至右的序列编码;拼音水平越好,聋生识别汉字语音正确率越高,但达到一定水平后逐渐稳定下来。研究建议未来聋校应科学利用聋人汉字音位编码的加工特点,在拼音教学中重视指拼和字母教学,进一步加强对手指韵母的学习,有针对性地促进聋生的拼音和语言学习。     

手语词类型对不同汉语拼音水平聋生语音加工的影响研究

文本选取武汉某聋校69名高中聋生为被试,采用2×2×2三因素混合实验设计,针对不同类型手语词,从声母、韵母两个水平考察不同汉语拼音水平聋生的语音表征和加工能力。研究发现,指拼与手势的认知加工方式存在差异,指拼对声母提取有促进作用,对韵母提取的影响不大;聋生声母提取能力优于韵母;汉语拼音水平高与低组聋生在语音加工能力上存在显著差异。研究结果对聋校语音教学有一定的启示作用。     

手势表征对有助听设备聋生语音提取的影响

以17名有人工耳蜗或助听器的初中聋生为被试,考查手势表征对于聋生语音提取 的影响.被试判断同一汉字在不同词语中的读音是否相同.结果表明,聋生的语音判断受 手势信息的干扰.在聋生的语言表征中,语音表征同手势表征联系较强.初中聋生的语言 表征符合修正的层级模型.     

字词条件下聋生唇读汉字语音识别的实验研究

本研究采用 2× 3两因素被试内实验设计 ,探讨了聋生唇读语音识别中词长效应和音素可见性的影响。结果发现 :聋生单字条件的正确识别率高于词语首字 ,且存在显著差异 :唇读汉字语音进行声母、单韵母、复韵母识别效果存在极其显著差异 ,识别正确率从高到低依次为单韵母、复韵母、声母 ;字词条件与音素水平之间交互作用不显著。     

语训和助听对聋生语音意识发展的影响

通过Stroop实验、多音字实验比较了有、无语训及助听设备的先天聋生的语音意识发展.结果表明:(1)聋生在Stroop任务中反应不受汉字读音和字的颜色的关系影响.(2)有语训、有助听设备的聋生能够掌握多音字的多种读音,但通达速度慢.无语训、无助听设备的聋生仅掌握多音字的少数读音,对相似读音区分能力弱.     

关于聋校的语音教学

发音、听话—看话、拼音等与语音有关的项目在聋校教学中占有非常重要的地位。这些教学的最主要目的是发展学生的口语交际能力。然而 ,经过这些语音教学 ,聋生实际获得了怎样的口语能力却是令人怀疑的。聋生通过学习能够以口语与人交际的极为少见。不过 ,聋校的语音教学对于书面语言和手语的运用还是具有重要的意义。如果我们把聋校语音教学的目的调整为促进书面语言和手语的运用 ,教学方式和时间安排也应该做相应的调整     

聋校口语教学与双语教学述评

口语教学与双语教学基于不同的观点提出了提升聋校学生语言能力的不同途径。口语教学强调语音意识的培养,双语教学强调手语在习得汉语言中的重要性。口语教学在实现聋生语音构音上面临挑战,双语教学对手势汉语的手指语依赖性及手势汉语在聋生汉语言习得中的使用上也并未给予详尽说明,同时,缺乏本土化研究作为理据。聋校汉语言教学应将口语和手语均纳入聋校课程和课堂中,结合理论和实践构建科学的教学理论和方法。     

运用语音识别技术创设无障碍教学环境——对聋生语文教学的新探索

语音识别技术是21世纪初信息技术领域十大重要科学技术之一。语音识别技术的日臻完善为无障碍教学提供了有效的方法和便利的空间,其自身的特性日益受到聋生教育工作者的关注。通过运用语音识别技术创设无障碍教学环境,对聋生语文教学进行新的探索,对实际应用有一定的参考价值。     

聋生智力与行为问题的调查研究

本研究采用瑞文标准推理测验和Rutter儿童行为问卷对深圳唯一的一所特殊学校的在校聋生进行调查,分析、比较聋生中存在的智力与行为问题。结论聋生中存在一定比例的有听力、智力、行为问题等双重或多重障碍的学生,行为问题以情绪问题为主;聋生行为问题的出现在不同智力水平的学生之间有显著差别,而与学生的性别、年龄没有显著的相关;注意力不集中或短暂是所有学生的突出特点。     

聋生心理健康状况研究的现状、问题与对策

文章梳理并分析了1990-2015年间公开发表的聋生心理健康状况研究的相关文献,发现我国聋生心理健康状况研究存在研究工具使用不合理、缺乏随班就读聋生的心理健康状况的研究、聋生心理健康与其他因素的关系研究有待加强等问题。针对存在的问题,文章对未来研究提出了几点对策。     

聋人文字加工中语音编码作用的研究综述

针对聋人文字加工中语音编码作用的问题 ,本文对相关中英文的研究资料进行了综述 ,对证明聋人文字加工中存在语音编码和其他编码的实验分别进行了介绍 ,并对影响语音编码的相关因素进行了探讨。     

Reading Difficulties in Adult Deaf Readers of French: Phonological Codes,Not Guilty!

Deaf people often achieve low levels of reading skills. The hypothesis that the use of phonological codes is associated with good reading skills in deaf readers is not yet fully supported in the literature. We investigated skilled and less skilled adult deaf readers' use of orthographic and phonological codes in reading. Experiment 1 used a masked priming paradigm to investigate automatic use of these codes during visual word processing. Experiment 2 used a serial recall task to determine whether orthographic and phonological codes are used to maintain words in memory. Skilled hearing, skilled deaf, and less skilled deaf readers used orthographic codes during word recognition and recall, but only skilled hearing readers relied on phonological codes during these tasks. It is important to note that skilled and less skilled deaf readers performed similarly in both tasks, indicating that reading difficulties in deaf adults may not be linked to the activation of phonological codes during reading.     

How speechreading contributes to reading in a transparent ortography: the case of Spanish deaf people

The aim of the study is to describe the performance of deaf and hearing people while speechreading Spanish, a language with transparent orthography, and to relate this skill to reading efficiency. Three groups of 27 participants each were recruited: a group of deaf participants, a chronological age‐matched hearing group and a reading age‐matched hearing group. All three were tested on vocabulary, phonological awareness, reading speed, speechreading and, only in the group of deaf people, speech intelligibility. The results indicate that deaf people are better speechreaders than younger hearing people, but they are no better than their age‐matched peers, and that speechreading is related to reading only in deaf people.     

聋人与正常人汉语加工的比较研究

聋人与正常人相比在汉语加工过程中字义、词义易相互干扰 ,句子阅读较难区分意群。在短时记忆中聋人与正常人都显示出了形、义编码的作用较强 ,音码的作用较弱。长时记忆中正常人有明显的语音相似性效应 ,聋人中则突出地显示出视觉的相似性干扰。聋人和正常人在汉语的字、词、句子以及音、形、义的不同维度上的比较将有助于确定汉语信息加工中哪些因素起到了重要作用 ,为聋人的教育提供参考     

Do deaf children use phonological syllables as reading units?

This study aimed at examining whether deaf children process written words on the basis of phonological units. In French, the syllable is a phonologically and orthographically well-defined unit. French deaf children and hearing children matched on word recognition level were asked to copy written words and pseudo-words. The number of glances at the item, copying duration, and the locus of the first segmentation (i.e., after the first glance) within the item were measured. The main question was whether the segments copied by the deaf children corresponded to syllables as defined by phonological and orthographic rules.The results showed that deaf children, like hearing children, used syllables as copying units when the syllable boundaries were marked both by orthographic and phonological criteria. However, in a condition in which orthographic and phonological criteria were differentiated, the deaf children did not perform phonological segmentations while the hearing children did. We discuss two explanatory hypotheses. First, items in this condition were difficult to decode for deaf children; second, orthographic units were probably easier to process for deaf children than phonological units because of a lack of automaticity in their phonological conversion processes for pseudo-words. Finally, incidental observations during the experimental task raised the question of the use of fingerspelled units.     

Homophone effects in deaf readers: evidence from lexical decision

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.     

Phonological awareness: one key to the reading proficiency of deaf children

A case is made for the importance of children's development of phonological awareness--whether they are hearing or deaf--if they are to reach their potential as readers. Relevant terms are defined (i.e., phonological awareness, phonological processes, and phonics) to assist the reader with the research review, which covers (a) the typical stages in the acquisition of phonological awareness and (b) phonological awareness and deafness. Suggestions for phonological awareness assessment are offered, along with the recommendation that the use of recently developed formal and informal measures of phonological awareness might facilitate the setting of goals and objectives when deaf educators or speech-language pathologists are evaluating the skills of deaf students and planning instruction for these students. Such tools yield information about skills that have been shown to correlate with literacy attainment and that are not commonly addressed by deaf educators or speech-language pathologists serving deaf students. Finally, research concerning the facilitation of phonological awareness and its application is explained.     

Individual differences in cognitive skills related to reading ability in the deaf

Deaf subjects who represented a wide range of reading abilities were tested on a number of factors including reliance on phonological recoding as well as several metacognitive abilities. The sample consisted of 19 high school students who were prelingually and profoundly deaf. Subjects were given a set of paper and pencil tests that included an assessment of phonological recoding ability as well as the measures designed by Baker (1984) to assess metacognitive skills in reading. Results indicated that deaf subjects demonstrated a significant degree of reliance on phonological recoding, but that individual differences in reliance on phonological recoding showed no relationship to reading skill (r = .02). Individual differences on the metacognition measures, however, showed a strong relationship to reading ability (r = .65, p less than .01). The implications for remedial instruction for deaf students are discussed.     

Deaf children's use of phonological coding: evidence from reading, spelling, and working memory

Two groups of deaf children, aged 8 and 14 years, were presented with a number of tasks designed to assess their reliance on phonological coding. Their performance was compared with that of hearing children of the same chronological age (CA) and reading age (RA). Performance on the first task, short-term recall of pictures, showed that the deaf children's spans were comparable to those of RA controls but lower than CA controls. For the older deaf children, short-term memory span predicted reading ability. There was no clear evidence that the deaf children were using phonological coding in short-term memory when recall of dissimilar items was compared with recall of items with similarly sounding names. In the second task, which assessed orthographic awareness, performance of the deaf children was similar to that of RA controls although scores predicted reading level for the deaf children but not the hearing. The final task was a picture spelling test in which there were marked differences between the deaf and hearing children, most notably in the number of spelling refusals (which was higher for the deaf children in the older group than their RA controls) and the percentage of phonetic errors (which was considerably lower for both groups of deaf children than for any of the hearing controls). Overall these results provide support for the view that deaf children place little reliance on phonological coding.