Eye-Tracking for Word Learning in Deaf Children

Overseen By Amy Lieberman, PhD

Age: < 18

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: Boston University Charles River Campus

Disqualifiers: No ASL exposure

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: 1

40 Participants Needed

What You Need to Know Before You Apply

What is the purpose of this trial?

This trial examines how deaf children learn words using visual cues, focusing on the concept of mutual exclusivity. It seeks to determine whether deaf children who use American Sign Language (ASL) assume that each object has one sign or both a sign and a spoken word. The study observes how children respond to various visual cues paired with objects. Ideal candidates for this trial are children aged 18-60 months who were born severely to profoundly deaf, use ASL to communicate, and have normal or corrected vision. As an unphased trial, this study provides a unique opportunity to enhance understanding of language development in deaf children.

Do I need to stop my current medications for this trial?

The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications.

What prior data suggests that this method is safe for children?

Research has shown that using cues, such as visual and referential cues, is generally safe for children, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing. These cues aid in word learning by providing various signals. Although specific studies on the direct safety of these cues are lacking, no evidence suggests they cause harm. Instead, studies emphasize the importance of exposing deaf children to rich, varied language, including signs, visual information, and other inputs to support language learning. Thus, using these cues is considered safe and beneficial for children learning words. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

Why are researchers excited about this trial?

Researchers are excited about this trial because it explores a new way to support word learning in deaf children using eye-tracking and referential cues. Traditionally, interventions for deaf children focus on sign language or auditory training. However, this method leverages visual cues by combining gaze direction and novel labels, which could enhance the association between words and objects. This approach may offer a more intuitive learning process for children who primarily rely on visual information, potentially speeding up their language acquisition in a way that other methods do not.

What evidence suggests that this trial's methods could be effective for word learning in deaf children?

This trial will explore the use of visual cues to aid word learning in deaf children. Research has shown that visual cues can help deaf children learn new words. Studies have found that directly teaching words, such as pointing to and naming objects, is more effective than learning by chance for deaf and hard-of-hearing children. Visual cues are crucial because deaf children rely on visual information differently than hearing children when recognizing words. Early results suggest that methods like Cued Speech, which combines speech with hand signals, improve speech understanding in children with cochlear implants. This underscores the importance of clear visual input. Overall, these strategies enhance word learning for deaf children. ^{2 4 6 7 8}

Who Is on the Research Team?

Amy Lieberman, PhD

Principal Investigator

Boston University

Are You a Good Fit for This Trial?

This trial is for deaf children aged 18-60 months who were born with severe to profound hearing loss. It's suitable for those who use American Sign Language (ASL) and have normal or corrected-to-normal vision, regardless of whether their parents are deaf or hearing.

Inclusion Criteria

Children who are deaf and have parents who are either deaf or hearing.

My child, aged 18-60 months, was born with severe to profound deafness.

I am a deaf child with normal or corrected-to-normal vision.

Exclusion Criteria

My child is deaf and has not learned American Sign Language.

Timeline for a Trial Participant

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Experimental Procedure

Participants engage in structured word learning tasks involving object selection based on referential cues and mutual exclusivity

1 session

1 visit (in-person)

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for any additional insights or data collection post-experiment

2 weeks

What Are the Treatments Tested in This Trial?

Interventions

• input cue

Trial Overview

The study investigates how deaf children learn words using a principle called mutual exclusivity - the idea that each object has only one name. Researchers will see if this applies to kids learning ASL and those learning both ASL and spoken language through eye-tracking and behavior observation.

How Is the Trial Designed?

Group I: Referential cues to object Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

Each object pair that is presented to the child is accompanied by 1) gaze only (3 trials); 2) novel label only (3 trials); or 3) conflicting gaze and novel label (3 trials)

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Boston University Charles River Campus

Lead Sponsor

Trials

125

Recruited

14,100+

Published Research Related to This Trial

Hearing children and deaf children who were exposed early and intensively to Cued Speech (CS-Home) demonstrated high accuracy in spelling both high-frequency and low-frequency words, indicating effective phonological representation.

In contrast, deaf children who were exposed to Cued Speech later and only at school (CS-School) showed lower accuracy in spelling, suggesting that early and consistent exposure to phonologically rich environments is crucial for developing strong phonological and orthographic skills.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Phonology acquired through the eyes and spelling in deaf children. Leybaert, J.[2006]

Deaf children with cochlear implants who were exposed to cued speech early (before 2 years old) showed significant improvements in phonemic awareness and reading skills compared to those who were not exposed to cued speech.

Cued speech did not enhance phonological short-term memory, but children exposed to it performed similarly to hearing peers in phonemic awareness and reading tasks, highlighting its effectiveness in supporting literacy development in deaf children.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Reading and reading-related skills in children using cochlear implants: prospects for the influence of cued speech. Bouton, S., Bertoncini, J., Serniclaes, W., et al.[2013]

Deaf children learning American Sign Language (ASL) show efficient lexical recognition similar to hearing children, activating semantic features of signs quickly after they are presented.

While these children recognize the meaning of signs effectively, they are more influenced by phonological competitors in their responses, indicating a complex interaction between semantic understanding and phonological processing in ASL.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Lexical Recognition in Deaf Children Learning American Sign Language: Activation of Semantic and Phonological Features of Signs. Lieberman, AM., Borovsky, A.[2021]

Children who are deaf exhibited greater visual impairments, such as higher ametropia and reduced near vision capabilities, compared to children who could hear, highlighting the need for comprehensive eye examinations in this population.

Using a yellow color overlay significantly improved reading speed by 18% for children who are deaf, while it had no effect on reading speed for children who could hear, suggesting that color overlays may be a beneficial tool for enhancing reading performance in deaf children.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Visual performance and the use of colored filters in children who are deaf. Hollingsworth, RS., Ludlow, AK., Wilkins, AJ., et al.[2018]

Children with hearing loss (HL) showed a developmental delay in phonological processing, relying more on visual speech cues when younger, while older children with HL benefited more from auditory speech without additional help from visual cues.

In naming tasks, conflicting auditory and visual speech distractors slowed down responses for children with HL, indicating that their speech processing is initially more influenced by visual information but becomes more refined with age.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Role of visual speech in phonological processing by children with hearing loss. Jerger, S., Tye-Murray, N., Abdi, H.[2021]

A profoundly deaf girl with reading disorders used a 'logographic' strategy, relying on visual features of words, to recognize them, which was identified through eye fixation measurements.

After a specialized training program focused on grapheme-phoneme relations, her reading skills improved significantly, and her eye fixation patterns became similar to those of typical readers, highlighting the effectiveness of targeted interventions for reading impairments.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

From "logographic" to normal reading: the case of a deaf beginning reader. Aghababian, V., Nazir, TA., Lançon, C., et al.[2019]

Children with cochlear implants (CIs) showed difficulties in word learning, particularly in retaining new words over time, as they did not improve in retention like their hearing peers did.

While children with CIs performed similarly to their vocabulary-matched peers in fast mapping and extension tasks, their overall word learning abilities were less effective compared to age-matched hearing children.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Word learning processes in children with cochlear implants. Walker, EA., McGregor, KK.[2021]

In a study involving 29 children and 16 adult signers, both deaf and hearing children demonstrated rapid and similar eye movement patterns while comprehending American Sign Language (ASL), indicating that visual language processing is efficient and not hindered by auditory access.

Children's ability to process ASL was positively correlated with their age and vocabulary size, suggesting that as they grow and learn more signs, their visual attention and comprehension skills improve, which are crucial for language acquisition.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Real-time lexical comprehension in young children learning American Sign Language. MacDonald, K., LaMarr, T., Corina, D., et al.[2019]

A study using eye-tracking with deaf children and hearing children showed that both groups had similar initial eye-gaze behaviors when first encountering words, indicating that deaf readers do not rely heavily on phonological decoding at this stage.

However, when re-reading words, deaf readers did not differentiate between homophonic and nonhomophonic errors like hearing readers did, suggesting that deaf signers engage less in phonological processing compared to their hearing peers.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Examining speech-based phonological recoding during reading for adolescent deaf signers. Cooley, FG., Quinto-Pozos, D.[2023]

Deaf children learning American Sign Language (ASL) can effectively fast-map novel signs to objects, demonstrating their ability to coordinate visual attention between signs and referential cues, regardless of when those cues are presented.

The study, involving 62 deaf children aged 17 to 71 months across two eye-tracking experiments, found that individual differences in attention allocation were linked to their success in learning new signs, highlighting the importance of visual processing in language acquisition.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Flexible fast-mapping: Deaf children dynamically allocate visual attention to learn novel words in American Sign Language. Lieberman, AM., Fitch, A., Borovsky, A.[2023]

Citations

1.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8818049/

Flexible fast-mapping: Deaf children dynamically allocate ...

This study provides first evidence for fast-mapping in sign language, and contributes to theoretical accounts of how word learning develops when all input ...

2.

pubs.asha.org

pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00570

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Vocabulary ...

These results also show that explicit vocabulary instruction is more beneficial for DHH children than incidental learning. Other direct instruction methods can ...

3.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4111351/

Cued Speech for Enhancing Speech Perception and First ...

We describe five lines of research that are converging to support the view that Cued Speech can enhance speech perception in individuals with cochlear implants.

4.

sciencedirect.com

sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027721003619

The impact of visual cues during visual word recognition in ...

Recent research suggests key differences in how deaf and hearing readers use visual information during visual word recognition.

5.

academiccommons.columbia.edu

academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D84J1XH2/download

Quality and Quantity of Language Input and Its Relation to the ...

This literature review is organized by 4 major sections: 1) the role of social interaction in language acquisition, 2) the language exposure for children with.

6.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9688581/

Deaf Children Need Rich Language Input from the Start

Deaf children need comprehensible multimodal language exposure, including sign language, from birth, and early, accessible language is crucial.

7.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7251336/

Vocal and Tactile Input to Children Who Are Deaf or Hard ...

This study explored the frequency of maternal touch and the temporal alignment of touch with speech in the input to children who are DHH and age-matched peers ...

8.

mdpi.com

mdpi.com/2039-4349/14/6/84

Impact of Hearing Loss Type on Linguistic Development in ...

This study aimed to analyze how different types and degrees of hearing loss impact linguistic development in children, and to identify clinical factors.